May2019

The development of a sustainable construction design process.
Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements
of the University of Liverpool for the
degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Ruth Michelle Sutton
8th May 2019

DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this dissertation constitutes my own product, that where the
language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate
credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions or writings of
another.
I declare that the dissertation describes original work that has not previously been
presented for the award of any other degree of any institution.
Signed,
Ruth Michelle Sutton
ii
Ruth Sutton
ABSTRACT
The construction industry uses large volumes of physical resource and employs
many. Yet its performance often falls short of expectations. Increasing demand for
their products to be sustainable requires a radical change in methods employed.
Prefabricated construction has been adopted at times of constrained resources. As
such it may be able to meet sustainability expectations. However, using this type of
design without changing the industries methods will not be enough. Systematic
design methods have led to large improvement in the car and electrical product
industries and may be able to support change in construction.
The research developed a systematic design process, for use with prefabricated
construction. The method was adapted to ensure sustainability requirements were
considered during the early design stages by incorporating them into the design
process at the product specification.
The adapted method was applied to a building outline and the sustainability of the
design solutions were compared to a traditional construction method. In the case
study the best performing solution had the design with open timber framed panels,
using the largest panel size, without a structural frame. The design tools used were
shown to improve the users understanding of the design space and creating
possible solutions. The tools included social issues that were poorly addressed
elsewhere.
The tool improved some aspects of the building’s sustainability but additional tools
or redefining some of the functional requirements would be required to fully
address whole life sustainability. To improve accuracy the tool would benefit from
comprehensive LCA databases for use in the early stages of the design process. Such
a database would have value across the industry. The industry should also focus on
the development of better relationship along the supply chain.
i
Ruth Sutton
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr Tim Short and Prof
Steve Jones who between them have helped me to make it this far. They have
guided me throughout my studies with patience and immense knowledge. Their
support has been invaluable.
Many thanks to the project busines sponsor, Ric Frankland, without whom there
would not be a project. His continuous striving to improve his product, to achieve a
sustainable building led to many valuable conversations and ideas.
The project and my participation was made possible by European Regional

Development Funding. I am grateful to have worked alongside many talented
researchers within the Centre for Global Eco-Innovation.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank everyone in my home life. To many
friends who have been their for me, including Chris for his technical support, and
Gill and Helen who offered wise and witty counsel. Finally, those most important to
me. To Phil, without whom I wouldn’t have made it to the end, and to my Mum who
showed me the importance of perseverance.
iii
Contents Ruth Sutton
CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III
CONTENTS V
LIST OF FIGURES XI
LIST OF TABLES XIII
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research Aims 3
1.2.1 Aim 3
1.2.2 Primary Research Question 3
1.2.3 Secondary research questions 3
1.3 Scope 4
1.3.1 Outline 4
1.3.2 Design decisions 4
1.3.3 Case study 5
1.3.4 Sustainability 5
1.4 Thesis layout & summary of chapters 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Sustainability 7
2.2.1 Introduction 7
2.2.2 Business sustainability 9
2.2.3 Designing sustainably 10
2.2.4 Life cycle assessment 12
2.3 Housing construction industry 14

University of Liverpool 2019
2.3.2 Traditional construction 14
2.3.3 Construction innovation 16
2.3.4 Sustainable Design Tools / Sustainable construction 17
2.4 Industrial Design 19
2.4.2 Car manufacture: from craft to lean 20
2.4.3 Comparison of construction and automotive manufacture 21
2.4.4 Summary 24
2.5 Prefabricated housing 25
2.5.2 History 25
2.5.3 Prefabricated design and construction 28
2.6 The Research problem 31
2.6.1 Research targets 33
3 METHODS 35
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Research theory 35
3.3 Outline method 36
3.4 Theoretical frameworks 38
3.5 Sustainable Construction Design Process (SCDP) 39
3.5.1 Product specification and functional requirements 40
3.5.2 Embodied design 41
3.6 Sustainability assessment 44
3.6.1 Scope 44
vi
3.6.2 Inventory analysis 46
3.6.3 Impact assessment 47
3.7 Summary 60
4 RESULTS 61
4.1 Introduction 61
4.1.1 Company 61
4.1.2 Outline design 62
4.1.3 Functional unit 62
4.2 Product design 65
4.3 Conceptual design 66
4.3.1 Functional requirements: Building 66
4.3.2 Design conflicts: Building 69
4.3.3 Functional requirements: Building elements 70
4.3.4 Design conflicts: Building elements 72
4.3.5 Summary 72
4.4 Embodied design 73
4.4.2 Size requirements and layout. 73
4.4.3 Summary of transport design 77
4.4.4 Element design 80
4.4.5 Panel arrangements 82
4.4.6 Sustainability assessment 84
4.4.7 Design for Manufacture: Panel 86
4.4.8 Machining parts 88

4.4.9 Panel assembly time in the factory 89
4.4.10 Volumetric manufacture and assembly in the factory 90
4.4.11 Design for Assembly: Panel assembly on site 91
4.5 Traditional construction method 96
4.5.1 Materials 96
4.5.2 Construction process 98
4.5.4 Environment 99
4.5.5 Cost 100
4.5.6 Health and Safety 100
4.5.7 Adaptability 100
4.6 Sustainability score 101
4.6.1 Sustainability metrics 101
4.6.2 Cost 101
4.6.3 Social assessment 103
4.6.4 Normalisation and weightings 104
4.6.5 Total Score 105
5 DISCUSSION 108
5.1 Introduction 108
5.2 Justification for the research 108
5.3 The SCDP 110
5.3.1 Sustainability 110
5.3.2 Product specification and scope of tool 111
5.3.3 Metrics 111
viii
5.3.4 Metrics Scoring 113
5.3.5 Design improvements 113
5.4 Design process 114
5.4.1 Data quality 117
5.5 Contribution to housing construction research 117
5.5.1 Industry recommendations 119
5.6 Assumptions 119
5.7 Limitations 120
6 CONCLUSIONS 123
7 REFERENCES 125
8 APPENDICES 139
A METRICS 141
A.1 Environmental Metrics 142
A.1.1 Embodied energy materials / Energy consumption

/Climate change 142
A.1.2 Toxicity 142
A.1.3 Acid rain potential and Ozone depletion 143
A.1.4 Land footprint / resource scarcity 143
A.1.5 Waste: minimise recycle reuse 143
A.1.6 Water on site 143
A.2 Economic Metrics 144
A.2.1 Cost 144
A.3 Social Metrics 144
A.3.1 Responsible sourcing 144
A.3.2 Health and Safety 146
A.3.3 Adaptability 147

B PRODUCT DESIGN 149

B.1 Product Design Specification 149
B.1.1 Existing product summary 156
C MODEL ASSUMPTIONS 159

C.1 Model assumptions 161
D MATERIALS PALETTE 164

D.1 Environmental Score 165
D.2 Materials 165
D.3 Material details 165
D.3.1 Timber 165
D.3.2 Metals 166
D.3.3 Ground floor construction 168
D.3.4 Roof 169
D.3.5 Internal walls 170
D.3.6 Separating floor 171
D.3.7 Traditional Construction 172
D.4 Materials Pallette 173
E PANEL DESIGN 173

F MANUFACTURE OF COMPONENTS 179
G ASSEMBLY OF COMPONENTS, PANELS AND MODULES 229
H SOCIAL: RISK ASSESSMENT 257
I TOTAL SCORES 273
J TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION 299
K EMAIL COMMUNICATION 300
x
Ruth Sutton
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Triple bottom line. Adapted from (Elkington 1998) .................................... 9
Figure 2: Stages of the life cycle assessment. Adapted from (Baumann et al. 2002) 13
Figure 3: The constituent parts of a prefabricated building. TOP : Panel assembly.

Bottom: Volume assembly ......................................................................................... 29
Figure 4: Research method ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 5: Sustainable Construction Design Tool (SCDP) process ............................... 39
Figure 6: Sustainability hierarchy ............................................................................... 51
Figure 7: Outline of the building ................................................................................ 62
Figure 8: Images representing working structures to create volumes. ..................... 67
Figure 9: Images representing working structures for the creation of volumes. ...... 68
Figure 10: Images representing working structures for internal thermal

environment. .............................................................................................................. 69
Figure 12:Volumetric assembly: Equal sized modules: 2 ........................................... 75
Figure 11:: Volumetric assembly: Equal sized modules: 1 ......................................... 75
Figure 12: Volumetric assembly: Equal sized modules: 2 .......................................... 75
Figure 13: Volumentric Assembly: Room modules ....... 76
Figure 14: Feasible volumetric packing arrangements: Equal sized module1 ........... 78
Figure 15: Feasible volumetric packing arrangements: . Equal sized module 1 & Room
modules ...................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 16: Cladding layout using overlapping pieces ................................................. 94
xi
Ruth Sutton
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Thesis Structure .............................................................................................. 6
Table 2: Definition of parts in prefabricated construction. ....................................... 29
Table 3: Life cycle phases included in model. ............................................................ 45
Table 4: Project stakeholders ..................................................................................... 48
Table 5: Environmental issues identified during the literature review ..................... 49
Table 6: Social issues identified during the literature review .................................... 50
Table 7: Economic issues identified during the literature review ............................. 51
Table 8: Environmental impact scores (Anderson and Shiers 2009) ......................... 53
Table 9: Potentially hazardous activities ................................................................... 55
Table 10: Phases and risk description during prefabricated construction ................ 55
Table 11: Health and safety scoring ........................................................................... 56
Table 12: Sustainability index weighting.................................................................... 58
Table 13: Data quality framework adapted from BRE Global ltd 2008 ..................... 58
Table 14 Activities during life cycle phases................................................................ 63
Table 15: Functional requirements identified from the product design specification
.................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 16: Abstractions of the functional requirements (Pahl et al. 1988) ............... 66
Table 17: Working structures ..................................................................................... 69
Table 18: Feasibility of working structure combinations for building design ............ 70
Table 19: Abstraction of functional requirements for panel /element (Pahl et al.
1988) .......................................................................................................................... 71
Table 20: Abstraction of panel functional requirements ........................................... 71
Table 21: Feasibility of working structure combinations for panel design ................ 72
xiii
Table 22: Transport constraints ................................................................................. 73
Table 23: Onsite assembly. Module dimensions........................................................ 74
Table 24: Summary of factory to site transport ......................................................... 77
Table 25: Functional elements of panel ..................................................................... 80
Table 26: Material palette .......................................................................................... 82
Table 27: Panel profile: Timber frame ....................................................................... 83
Table 28: Panel profile: Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) (solution 2) Option 2 ......... 83
Table 29: Environmental Assessment: Green guide rating conversion to metric score
.................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 30: Environmental Assessment: Elemental Green guide rating....................... 84
Table 31: Environmental score (surface area) of the panel types ............................. 85
Table 32: Responsible sourcing: Weighting ............................................................... 85
Table 33: Responsible sourcing: Scores ..................................................................... 86
Table 34: Assessment of components ....................................................................... 87
Table 35: Number of components per building (core panel) .................................... 88
Table 36: I-joist material in timber frame panel building .......................................... 88
Table 37: Machining time in factory: Timber Frame Open Panel .............................. 89
Table 38: Machining time in factory: SIP panel Open panel ...................................... 89
Table 39: Factory assembly times for timber frame panels. Total for building in
hours........................................................................................................................... 90
Table 40: Factory assembly times for SIP. Total for building in hours ...................... 90
Table 41: Total number of panels .............................................................................. 90
Table 42: Assembly times for Timber Frame volumetric modules ............................ 90
Table 43: Weight of structural panels (kg) ................................................................. 92
Table 44 : Times taken to assemble panels onsite..................................................... 92
Table 45 Sumarry of assembly time (Panel positioning and sealing )........................ 93

xiv
Ruth Sutton
Table 46: Overlap options for red cedar cladding ..................................................... 95
Table 47: Design options and recommnendations .................................................... 97
Table 48: Material selection for traditional construction .......................................... 98
Table 49: Risk Assesment for traditional construction ............................................ 100
Table 50: Costs included at each stage of the lifecycle ........................................... 101
Table 51: Weightings applied to the criteria scores ................................................ 105
Table 52: Summary of total scores .......................................................................... 106
Table 53: Summary of top design solutions in the top decile of sustainability scores.
.................................................................................................................................. 106
Table 54 Energy impact of metal processing .......................................................... 166
xv
Ruth Sutton
Ruth Sutton
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
We are living through the Anthropocene. While not formally adopted as a geological
epoch, the Anthropocene has been defined as the period over which “many
geologically significant conditions and processes are profoundly altered by human
activities” (Crutzen 2002). The atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere
have been changed and these changes can be identified in the geological record.
Increasingly, these changes are causing alarm. The hole in the ozone layer, acid rain
and climate change, all result from anthropogenic activity. These environmental
changes have been caused by “our progress”.
An increased quality of life has resulted in the increased consumption of natural

resources which have led to these changes. However, these benefits have not been
universal; inequality exists both within the United Kingdom and across nations.
Free market economics states that the price of everything is determined by the
balance of supply and demand. Businesses can exploit inequality or act to reduce it.
They have the capacity to close the gap between the rich and poor, or to cement it
open, making it more difficult to change.
Sustainability in the business context addresses the challenges of social,

environmental and economic impact of its activities. Many businesses are
considering the sustainability of their activities, driven by legislation and customer
demand. This research addresses the sustainability of small scale houses builders in
the United Kingdom.
Housing is considered a universal right (Article 25, (United Kingdom 1998).

However, in the United Kingdom, there is a “housing crisis”. House prices and rents
mean that many are spending a larger proportion of their income than ever before;
homelessness and the number living in inadequate housing is increasing. One
solution is to provide new housing. Yet, in 2017/2018, only 222,000 houses were
completed; despite Government estimates that an annual output between 240,000
and 340,000 is required (House of Commons Library (UK) 2018). If increased
1
volumes of new housing are to be achieved, then changes to how the construction
industry acts are necessary.
Increasing the adoption of “mass produced modular components” is among the

proposed innovations for the construction industry to improve housing output
(House of Commons Library (UK) 2018). Prefabricated commercial construction has
been shown to offer better quality, lower cost and improved reliability, and
potential improvements in the sustainability of the industry follows.
While meeting the social need, increases in new housing will lead to the increased
use of resources. The construction industry uses more than 400 million tonnes of
material per annum (Office for National Statistics 2012). Increasing this by a further
10% to meet target construction rates would add at least an additional 40 million
tonnes of material use. However, in traditional construction, between 20% of
designed volume (Barrett and Wiedmann 2007) and 40% (Building Research
Establishment 2013) is waste material and addressing this would reduce the
additional impact. Offsite methods are expected to reduce waste volumes to
approximately 10% of total materials (Smith 2013), a saving at least 44 million
tonnes of materials each year across the whole industry.
Application of offsite methods would also achieve improved working conditions. In

traditional construction, many jobs are low skilled and insecure. Business models
adopted require significant workforce flexibility, so many staff are employed on
casual contracts. Offsite manufacture enables businesses to stabilise production
rates and so offer more secure job roles for the labour force.
Finally, moving construction away from site reduces the risk of injury. Traditional
construction is hazardous (Wright 2015) and offsite processes are widely considered
to represent lower risk (Blismas et al. 2006, Fard et al. 2017, Pan et al. 2012) . These
issues give a small insight into the sustainable improvements which are expected
from prefabrication.
This report addresses the need to improve the sustainability of housing

construction. Addressing prefabricated methods, which have been identified as
2
Ruth Sutton
offering improved quality, cost and program reliability, a tool for use by design
teams to develop sustainable construction methods will be created.
1.2 RESEARCH AIMS
1.2.1 Aim
The aim of this research is to produce a construction method to reduce negative

impacts of the construction of housing to social, economic and environmental
resources.
It is proposed that the methods described as engineering design are appropriate for
use in construction, and should improve the sustainability of the design,
manufacture and assembly of prefabricated housing construction.
1.2.2 Primary Research Question
How should systematic engineering design methods be adapted to produce more

sustainable of residential construction?
1.2.3 Secondary research questions
1) What are the sustainability issues affecting housing construction?
2) Are there parallels between car manufacture and housing construction which
enable the systematic design method to be applied to construction?
3) How should the systematic design method be adjusted for use in prefabricated
construction design? This adapted method will be the Sustainable Construction
Design Process (SCDP).
4) Does the new SCDP improve the sustainability of the construction method?
5) How can sustainability be ensured using the SCDP?
3
1.3 SCOPE
1.3.1 Outline
This research addresses the development of sustainable prefabricated housing. It

explores how engineering design tools can be adapted for use to improve
sustainability of housing construction.
1.3.2 Design decisions
The SCDP is for use by a developer or an architect designing the small scale
production of residential properties. It focuses on the manufacture and assembly of
the structure and fabric of the building. The installation of services, such as
plumbing, electrics and ethernet are not included in the assessment.
The research focuses on the building fabric, its manufacture and assembly in the
factory and onsite. The outline design places the building into the context of its
geographical environment, site conditions and planning conditions and describes
the approximate size, form, internal layout and glazing areas of the building. The
design process begins once this layout has been established.
The SCDP is for use during the early stages of a project as described by (Pahl et al.
1988) when the power to influence impacts is at its greatest. Although the SCDP
does not include design decisions for the outline building, it should be used
concurrently.
The tool addresses decisions that have little or no consequential impact on the
customer. The decisions addressed are material choices, component sizes and the
degree of offsite manufacture. The exception to this has been the cladding choice
which will have an aesthetic impact on the outside of the building. Cladding choice
has been included in the tool because the different cladding options are installed
using very different methods. The impact of the installation is affected by the
combination of the cladding choice and the construction methods.
4
Ruth Sutton
1.3.3 Case study
The SCDP developed was tested using a case study. The case study compared the
sustainability of a traditional construction method with that of the design solutions
developed using the SCDP. The case study is based in the United Kingdom, using a
British company which produces houses for the United Kingdom market.
The design method is appropriate for use anywhere; however, design must be
developed in accordance with local regulations. The SCDP tool was developed for
use in the UK. Data for the sustainability assessment was taken from a variety of
sources. Where possible the database used was for the United Kingdom, however,
for some of the environmental impacts for the material European data was used.
1.3.4 Sustainability
The research looked at sustainable issues from a broad, shallow perspective.

Where, other work was shown to identify single issues and focus on optimising the
design to achieve best performance, this research addressed several issues and
identified optimal solutions.
Sustainability was determined in the context of construction in the United Kingdom.

The relative importance of the sustainability issues were determined by the
business owner.
1.4 THESIS LAYOUT & SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS
The research was undertaken in a number of stages following the secondary

research questions. First, a literature review was undertaken to understand the
state of the art, this is presented in Chapter 2. Then, a methodology for the design
process, assessment and decision making was developed, as described in Chapter 3.
The results of the experimental research are presented in Chapter 4, and finally the
discussion and conclusion draw together all of the research and looks at the
effectiveness of the research to meet its aims, in Chapters 5 and 6.
5
Table 1: Thesis Structure
Chapter 1 This chapter gives the background to the research explaining wider context of the
Introduction problem. It also describes the the scope of the research and sumarises the contents.
Chapter 2 The literature review describes the state of the art for the main themes of the
Literature Review research. The current understanding of sustainability in the context of housing
construction is presented with a particular focus on prefabricated housing.
Product design methods used in indutrial design is described and the degree to which
similar tools have entered the construction industry is described.
The research problem is stated, based on the results of the literture review.
Chapter 3 Method The chapter describes the methods used in the research. It explain why the methods
are appropriate in this context.
It describes the product design method and the tools chosen to develop the
contruction process.
It goes onto explain how the sustainability of the solutions are assesed using a life
cycle method.
Chapter 4 Results The results chapter describes the application of the sustainable construction design
tool to a case study to test the effectiveneess of the method.
Chapter 5 The discussion section considers the methods applied within the research and the
Discussion succes of the appliation of the enginnering design method apporach in the context of
prefabricted construction.
The discussion describes how the tool fits within the existing range of design tools
available to the industry and describes the benefits achieved through use of the new
SCDP in the early design phases.
The devlopment of the tool disucusses focussing on the adaption of exisitng systematic
method, particukalry the inclusion of sustainable requirements in the early stages.
Presenting reccomendation for the industry and academia, it presents future

reccomedations for research
Chapter 6 The conclusion summarises the finding of the research. It places the new knowledge in
the context of the existing knowledge and shows how the new findings challenge the
Conclusion
exisitng apporach.
6
Literature Review Ruth Sutton
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
To meet the housing need in the United Kingdom, sustainable development

requires that the need for large scale housing construction in the United Kingdom
are balanced by the need to manage social, economic and environmental resources.
The first section of this chapter explores the meaning of sustainability in the context
of the construction industry.
It is important to address the impacts throughout the lifetime of the product if

sustainability is to be achieved. Manufacturing has addressed lifetime impacts in
the design of its products. The second section of the chapter describes how
sustainability has been addressed. It describes the commonalities between
manufacturing and construction and argues that they enable the transfer of
methods from one discipline to another.
By adopting prefabricated construction, the processes from manufacturing can be

applied to housing. The history of prefabricated construction is discussed and its
successes and failures are identified in the third and fourth sections of this chapter.
Current knowledge relating to the transfer of product design methods to housing
construction, particularly prefabrication are explored and gaps in the current
knowledge are identified.
Finally, the lessons from the literature review are brought together to summarise
the state of the art, and to identify where knowledge is required to develop
sustainable construction. The research aim is presented alongside research
questions to shape the research process.
2.2 SUSTAINABILITY
2.2.1 Introduction
The problems with free market exploitation of resources are described in the
“Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin 1968); competitive advantage prevents business
making sacrifices when limited resources are exploited by many, without any
7
external controls. Legal instruments act to prevent excessive damage to

environmental and social resources. For example environmentally, the
Environmental Act (United Kingdom 1995) adopts a precautionary principle to
prevent the pollution of land, air and soil from a range of chemicals.
Sustainability provides a framework to consider effects beyond the financial impact

and the legal restraint of human activities. It encourages the widening of one’s
focus, from a single issue to the more complex combination of effects. From its
conceptual beginnings in development economics, it is now widely used in business.
While sustainability is now considered in more contexts than international
development, the definition “meet(ing) the needs of current generations without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development 1987) described in ‘Our Common
Future’ remains powerful.
Weak sustainability is an anthropocentric approach that posits “man-made and

natural capitals are ultimately substitutable” (Walton and Emmanuel 2010), so that
a price can be placed on loss of amenity. Where resources are limited, cost will
increase as resources become scarcer. This should lead to improved efficiency or
substitution. However, critics of this approach assert that the market, or regulation
is unable to manage this and the adoption of weak sustainability will lead to the
over exploitation of some resources, so that they cannot recover.
There are limited and unlimited resources, and the earth has limited capacity to
renew itself. These limits require strong sustainability, which ensures resource
stocks are maintained or enhanced. The Triple Bottom Line (Elkington 1998) and the
circular economy (Kirchner et al. 2017) address sustainability by creating
relationships with resources that value and therefore account for the flows of
resources at all stages of the product lifetime. This reflects the early thinking used
by the Club of Rome (McCutcheon 1974) who used systems thinking to address how
materials move through the geosphere.
The strong sustainability approach uses the “carrying capacity” of the system to
understand what is sustainable (IUCN-UNEP-WWF 1991); it addresses the
comparative impacts the of different activities on communities to ensure social
8
equity is considered in a much broader global context (Walton, Emmanuel

2010).The strong sustainability approach ensures that all social and environmental
impacts are positive, without any negative impacts (Robèrt et al. 2002).
2.2.2 Business sustainability
In the simple sense, a business provides a product or service to meet the customers’
needs (Luttropp andLagerstedt 2006, Short et al. 2012)Luttropp and Lagerstedt.
Business activities are driven by customer demand and this requires a well-
functioning product, as “without customers prepared to pay for the function, and if
companies cannot make a profit, there will be no market” (Luttropp and Lagerstedt
2006). It is often concluded that a business’ economic wants are paramount.
However, a sustainable business has responsibilities to additional stakeholders, and
must identify the social, economic and environmental issues that affect local and
global communities, now and in the future.
The triple bottom line expresses the need to take account of environmental and
social impacts alongside the financial balances, Figure 1 (Elkington 1998). Others
have suggested that resources such as technology, energy, enterprise and social
values (Harder et al. 2013) are included. Here the original three are discussed.
Financially, businesses must maintain liquidity and be profitable to be viable;
People
Planet Profit
Figure 1: Triple bottom line. Adapted from (Elkington 1998)
9
failures can be catastrophic (Van Voorhis 2018). Changes required to become more
sustainable will require investment in training, labour and equipment (Hasan et al.
2018). Return on investment will occur over the long term and as such phased
approaches may be used.
Social capital measures “the ability of people to work together for common
purposes in groups and organizations” (Elkington 1998). Poor behaviour, such as
labour blacklisting (Pyper 2017), poor health and safety practices (Health and Safety
Executive 2017), and labour exploitation (Cockbain and Brayley-Morris 2018) have
been found to occur in the construction industry. Principles such as “trust, common
meaning, diversity, capacity for learning and capacity for self-organization”
(Missimer et al. 2010) should be considered. There has been limited focus on the
social aspects of sustainability (Berardi 2011, Short 2008). That less heed is paid to
social capital may be because it is a more nebulous concept, hard to measure and
subjective (Grosskurth and Rotmans 2005).
Environmental sustainability addresses the impact of business activities on the

water, air and biosphere. The extraction of virgin materials, the processing and
manufacture, their treatment during their lifetime and final disposal as waste can
result in the release of waste materials, the change of physical chemistry, interact
with the ecosystems or deplete the original resource. Physical flows of materials
and energy are accounted in order to measure the impacts.
Focusing on these capitals, key issues can be identified (Akadiri and Olomolaiye
2012, Basiago 1995)Akadiri and Olomolaiye. Business activities affect the capitals
and business decisions determine the impacts. The challenge is to create the
conditions which ensure sustainability.
2.2.3 Designing sustainably
A designer wanting to create a sustainable product must be aware of its impacts

across its lifetime. As the designer cannot be expected to also be a specialist in
sustainability, simple tools are required to assist them to assess whether they are
appropriate (Ernawati et al. 2015, Lagerstedt, Luttropp 2006, Luttropp, Karlsson
2001, Short et al. 2012).
10
There are two main pathways to sustainable production for businesses.

Sustainability can be treated as an evolving process with research, development and
investment enabling improvements. While a company’s initial offering may perform
poorly with respect to some issues, the company may know that future
development and investment would improve that performance. As such a product
would have a number of sub-optimal phases before reaching the final production
method, with investment enabling the next improvement to be initiated
(Aschehoug and Boks 2013).
Alternatively a strong sustainability could be aimed for, which may increase the
time to market for many products or even preventing some from being produced.
By designing for eco-effectiveness, solutions using different principles can be
achieved (McDonough and Braungart 2010). By understanding the wider
stakeholders’ needs, new types of products or solutions may be found, which,
rather than minimising harm, create additional benefits (Aschehoug and Boks
2013).
2.2.3.1 Design tools
Tools to support the design process occur as frameworks, principles, guidelines and
assessment methods. These enable designers to understand how their decisions
affect the performance of the products across their required properties.
Frameworks describe the conditions in which the design occurs. They are unlikely to
present numerical values and strict rules for adherence, but they describe a range
of concepts for use by organisations or states to establish their own requirements.
Examples include International Organization for Standardization (ISO) documents,
British Standards and the UK Building Regulations, Factor Ten Engineering Principles
(Lovins et al. 2010) and “12 principles of green engineering” (Anastas and
Zimmerman 2003). Concepts such as “integrative design” and “whole systems
thinking” and “solving many problems at once” (Lovins et al. 2010) address the
framework in which the design process occurs.
Principles and guidelines sit within the framework and describe widely applicable
rules. They describe design properties that should be considered and may be
11
qualitative or semi quantitative. When used alongside the specification, they

describe the design space in which the solutions lie. The principles are specific. They
address the whole product impact; “the best designs are inherently sustainable”,
“efficiency is vital” (Anastas and Zimmerman 2003), focus on elements of the
product life or function “the end of life stage must be well managed” (Anastas and
Zimmerman 2003), “Promote long life”, “Use as few joining elements as possible
and use…according to lifecycle scenario(s)” (Luttropp and Lagerstedt 2006)
2.2.4 Life cycle assessment
2.2.4.1 Introduction
Well-developed life cycle methodologies are available for cost and environmental
impacts. Social responsibility is addressed in ISO 26000 but focuses on business
behaviour, not product design.
The life cycle assessment (LCA) is an auditing procedure which enables a business to
understand the impact of processes on a range of conditions. ISO standards lay out
specific methods to calculate life cycle impacts. For construction assessment, life
cycle assessments are predominantly one of three types.
• A stand-alone method is undertaken by the manufacturer to provide a

quantitative values to the impact of their product.
• Single materials are rarely used in construction, instead functional elements are
constructed using several materials. The comparative method addresses
element assemblies which perform the same function.
• A prospective assessment is used to understand the product and the relative

impacts of the processes, material choices etc. This particularly useful when the
product is in manufacture and real data can be collected.
2.2.4.2 Assessment method
The LCA process remains the same for each of the three types. In accordance with
ISO 14040 (2006), the assessment comprises four phases as shown in Figure 2. The
goal and scope frames the context of the assessment. It describes the purpose of
12
the tool, indicating who will use the assessment results, and the level of detail
required. A key element of the scope is the functional unit which describes the
product assessed, and which phases of the product’s lifetime are included.
The inventory analysis details all of the materials and processes included in the
functional unit. The production and manufacture can be visualised as a flow chart
showing materials and energy and waste entering and leaving the product system.
It describes the data sources, and how impacts are distributed between multiple
products and processes, if shared.
•Context
Goal and •Aims
scope •Scope and
requirements
•Flow chart
Inventory •Data
analysis collection
•Allocation
•Description of
Impact impact
assessment •Sustainability
scores
Interpretation •Description of
impact
and •Sustainability
presentation scores
Figure 2: Stages of the life cycle assessment. Adapted from (Baumann et al. 2002)
The interpretation of the assessment occurs throughout the process as the data is
collected and understanding is gained from the results as they become apparent.
While ISO 14040 (2006) states that “there is no scientific basis for reducing the LCA
to a single score”, the design process has included a score to aid the critical review
and simplify decision making for the user.
2.2.4.3 Summary
Sustainability describes a framework in which the current and future states of global
resources can be understood. There are two ways to understand the total resource
impact the first considers the value of all of the resources as a whole and allows for
13
the interaction between the resources. The second see the resources as limited and
treats the systems independently during assessment.
The next section describes the traditional construction industry, highlighting the
issues which sustainable methods need to address.
2.3 HOUSING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
2.3.1 Introduction
The influence of construction on our living environment is clear. Within any city
centre, practically every surface has been constructed. In 2016, the value of output
from the construction industry in the United Kingdom was £93,467 million and
produced, maintained or demolished the built environment. Of this total, 33% was
new housing (Department for Communities and Local Government 2017). This
section explores housing construction with a focus on processes and decisions
which affect its sustainability.
Research into construction is intermediate in maturity (Edmondson and McManus

2007) and exploratory studies have often adopted qualitative methods “to foster
development of construction knowledge” (Fellows and Liu 2015). Questionnaires,
interviews and workshops have been widely used to gather information about the
sector (Yung et al. 2013). They provide valuable qualitative data about attitudes
(Meehan and Bride 2015) and decision making (Rahman 2013) across the sector.
Numerical methods have been used for engineering design of components and
elements, organisation of site work (Villoria Sáez et al. 2014), performance
assessment using optimisation methods (Chardon et al. 2016, Islam et al. 2015), and
energy performance (Hong et al. 2016) assess current performance. Proposed
design tools have been validated using case study data (Gerth et al. 2013, Villoria
Sáez et al. 2014).
2.3.2 Traditional construction
Construction is “a complex interplay of people, tools, equipment and materials

coordinated by communication” (Radosavljevic and Bennett 2012). In traditional
14
housing construction, a team of specialists work together to design and build a

property. An architect is responsible for the building design, working directly with
the client to understand the requirements. Structural, mechanical and service
engineers, and quantity surveyors design a combination of systems which work
together to offer the occupier a safe, comfortable environment.
Integrating each system into the single product, balancing conflicting needs, while
also managing the programme and financial constraints is challenging (Pugh 1991).
Increasing the role of the quantity surveyor, and removing decision making power
from the building engineer has replaced design efficiency with cost reduction
(Clarke and Wall 2000). By focusing on the management of financial aspects rather
than on the construction process, opportunities for savings are missed (Sarhan and
Fox 2013).
The construction of the building fabric and systems are often not considered until
the building design has been completed and little design flexibility remains (Bell et
al. 2010). By bringing together the construction team, including designers,
engineers and the onsite contractors, at an early stage of the design, and treating
the building as a large system, integrated solutions can be found (Lovins et al.
2010).
During traditional construction, work is mostly carried out in-situ onsite.

Management of the workflow onsite is difficult. Assumptions about workflow
creates difficulties managing the programme (Naoum 2016), wasting time and
possibly leading to delays.
Onsite, the location of the workstation is fixed because the building is static, so the
workforce must be mobile. Limited space means that only one team of
subcontractors can work in an area at a time, requiring careful coordination
(Koskela 2003). A team will complete their tasks and move on, allowing the next
team to start their work. This sequencing of subcontractors can mean that
completed work is damaged in order to carry out the next job. Bringing back the
original team to complete the reworking would be costly, so the less skilled
subcontractor, who caused the damage, fixes it, leading to reduced quality
15
(Wingfield et al. 2008). Reworking also requires additional materials. Reducing the
amount of reworking is desirable.
The management of materials on site is vital to the site efficiency. The construction
industry uses more than 400 million tonnes of material per annum (Office for
National Statistics 2012). A traditional four bedroomed house is approximately 1778
tonnes of material (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic 2012). Waste material produced
onsite is estimated to be between 20% of designed volume (Barrett and Wiedmann
2007) and 40% (Building Research Establishment 2009). As such, any reduction in
waste would be significant.
Construction sites are hazardous, with vehicle movements, excavations and

accessible heights and without intervention, the likelihood of accidents is high and
the consequences potentially fatal. In 2015/16, there were 43 deaths in the
construction industry, most caused by falls and vehicle collisions, the financial costs
of work place injuries and sickness to the workers, company and country is
estimated to be almost £1 billion (Wright 2015). The designer, contractor and
workers all have legal duties to manage safety on site; however, too often risk
assessments are undertaken too late in the design process, restricting actions
available to reduce the risk and missing early opportunities to design out risk (The
Royal Academy of Engineers 2003).
2.3.3 Construction innovation
Construction is a traditional industry and tends not to adopt innovation. Where

change has occurred, it is often not through a paradigm shift, but by small changes
in project management or product delivery (Monahan and Powell 2011).
Government reports into the construction industry have repeatedly identified

offsite manufacture as an innovation to improve quality, lower cost and improve
sustainability (Egan 1998, Latham 1994). Yet the industry has remained slow to
change and reluctant to adopt new methods (Gann 1996). The most recent report,
addressing the need for new housing construction has again repeated the need for
need for companies to adopt offsite, stating that innovation has often been limited
to commercial development (Science and Technology Select Comittee 2018).
16
2.3.4 Sustainable Design Tools / Sustainable construction
Much of the existing research is qualitative and develops our understanding of the
motivations to be sustainable or the blockers to the adoption of new methods.
Quantitative research often comprises the detailed assessment of particular
solution types. Where research considers design decisions, the number of metrics
affected by the design choices can be limited. Hester et al. (2018) compared the
impact of design on embodied environmental impacts, operational energy and
cost.
Research indicates that for sustainable construction to be effective that energy

consumption, reuse/recycling of materials, construction and demolition waste
management, effective legal and policy frameworks, long-term costs, efficient use
of resources and environmental and economic design and awareness need to be
addressed (Sfakianaki 2018). Issues affecting productivity are found to be material
supply, supervision, design changes and external work conditions (ground and
weather) (Hasan et al. 2018)
For improvements to be made, changes should be made to the design as well as the
construction process. Legislation covers many aspects of the construction process
and building design but it is focused on preventing damage and ensuring minimum
standards. Tools to improve sustainability beyond minimum standards have been
developed.
The building assessment tools are developed to “measure and define” buildings
(Wallhagen et al. 2013), with each tool addressing the stakeholders needs.
Sustainability design and assessment tools are available for construction e.g., and
British Standard BS 8905 (British Standard 2011), LEED (Lee 2013) and BRE Green
Print (Building Research Establishment 2013).
In 1996, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) introduced the Green Guide to
Specification (Anderson, Shiers 2009) to support the selection of construction
materials. It has been developed as a summary of life cycle assessment (LCA) data
for a range of construction materials and element assemblies. The impacts
considered are environmental impacts of materials, at all stages of the building
17
lifetime. Materials and element are ranked between A*- E based on a weighted
score of the LCA impacts.
Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) tool addressed energy use, site ecology,
materials, waste and other factors; some with minimum performance standards
(Department for Communities and Local Government 2010). The eight categories
were energy and pollution, material and waste, the indoor environment and health
and well-being, domestic water, site ecology and onsite management procedures.
These categories focus on the in-use phase of the building but also include
construction materials and site management. The site management activities
category addresses the impact of building construction. Registration with the
Considerate Constructors Scheme, gains credits. Audit and management systems
are credited, such as waste management plans, and health and safety action plans.
Previously, the CfSH assessment was legally required as part of the design process ;
the requirement for this was removed in 2015.
In 2012, Green Print (Building Research Establishment 2013) was released; a design
tool to encourage collaborative working towards the development of sustainable
communities. The tool has a focus beyond the building and its immediate environs,
and extends to community, transport, place making and business. While this tool
works towards addressing social and economic issues, the scope is much greater
than the impact of the buildings, addressing the lifetime of the development on the
community.
Beyond project design, companies’ sustainability aims are often outlined in the
Corporate Social Responsibility documents (CSR) affecting behaviours and practices
of the company; progress towards meeting their sustainability goals is assessed by
key performance indicators (KPI). Guidance is offered by ISO 26000 (2010) and the
areas covered should include the environment, human rights, labour practices, fair
operating practices, consumer issues, community involvement and development.
Available building assessment tools cover many key sustainability issues; however,
the scope of the tools is by the in-use stage of the building life with limited
consideration given to the construction phase. The social responsibility of a business
to the worker, customer and local and global community has been subject to
18
limited attention by the designer (Short et al. 2012). Beyond the construction,
whole life impact factors such as “flexibility, operations and maintenance” (Berardi
2011) are not addressed.
Where guidance is available it is presented as separate non-binding documents

making decision making difficult. A tool that enables the impacts of design changes
on many aspects of sustainability at the same time would be beneficial to the
designer.
It is the application of the tools in the design process that governs their real value.
Having tools and guidance which are not applied, or applied incorrectly reduces
their effectiveness. Furthermore, when asked to estimate the cost of the factors
there were large ranges in reported values, indicating either lack of knowledge of
available options or the cost of implementing the designs (Essa, Fortune 2008).
Furthermore, the tools described offer targets and areas of focus for sustainable
design but do not offer methods to optimise the design. As such, designers focus on
achieving the highest scores at lowest cost rather than achieving maximum gains for
all issues (Essa, Fortune 2008).
There has shown to be a need for innovation in construction, but that so far it is
lacking. Other industries may offer analogues which should be explored to identify
methods which would be innovative for construction.
2.4 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
2.4.1 Introduction
The failure of traditional construction to develop the process and the product to
improve sustainability has been established. Meanwhile, the car industry has
embraced systematic design and lean production methods to become more
efficient. Research has established that the similarities between house construction
and car manufacturing could enable lessons to be transferred between industries.
In this section, the car and the house, and the industries that produce them are
compared in order to develop the focus of the research.
19
2.4.2 Car manufacture: from craft to lean
Manufacturing is a “system of production involving the concentration of materials,

fixed capital and labour in one or more plants” (Gann 1996). By bringing many
production processes together in a single location, a range of components can be
produced and assembled into a product. Value is added to the product across a
number of stages. The organisation of these stages has changed over time and
differs across industries. Improvements in methods, materials and management
have led to improved quality and reliability, and increased profitability.
Famously, mass production was introduced within the car industry by Ford, and
later, the Japanese Toyota Production system enabled mass customisation. The
history of car manufacturing is one of continuous development of tools and
methods. Over time, production has moved from the work of a master craftsman
and his apprentices to mass production and assembly lines, then to the automation
of many processes.
Mass production was enabled when Ford introduced gauges as part of the
manufacturing process. Consistency in size enabled pieces, which had previously
been made to measure, to become interchangeable. This separated the component
manufacture and component assembly tasks. A mechanical assembly line, separate
to the manufacture of components, could be introduced because any one of a batch
of prepared parts could be installed into a car. Furthermore, sub-modules could be
pre-assembled before building them into the product (Womack and Jones 1990).
Vehicles were moved between work stations, which would be set up with the
correct tools and parts to make assembly easy for the worker. The worker at the
work station would repeat a smaller number of tasks; thereby, becoming specialised
in those tasks, increasing their efficiency and quality. Ford achieved 88%
improvements in “reduction in effort” between 1913 and 1914, from the
introduction of the assembly line (Womack and Jones 1990).
In 1950, Eiji Toyoda visited the Ford Rouge plant, in Detroit, to learn from their
manufacturing methods. At home in Japan, the family business produced trucks
using craft methods. On returning to Japan, he adapted the methods to fit his
20
business. While many of the ideas at Ford Rouge were valuable, the scale of
production was much greater than in Japan; Toyota needed the machines to be
more flexible (Womack and Jones 1990).
Today, the methods he developed are known as The Toyota Production System, a
“system of production, based on the philosophy of total elimination of waste that
seeks the utmost rationality in the way we make things” and is the basis of lean
production (Womack and Jones 1990).
2.4.3 Comparison of construction and automotive manufacture
This section compares small scale construction with lean manufacturing. Within a
small housing development, there may be a range of building products. Typically, a
single construction method (e.g. brick and block, timber frame or structurally
insulated panels across many sites) will be used across a development; however,
design variations, such as knee walls and Juliet balconies, will occur across the
product range. Lean manufacturing was developed to enable similar products to be
manufactured while enabling some customisation and so is suitable for this
purpose.
The car industry is process orientated and highly organised; the assembly line
system is heavily supported by machinery and runs continuously. The assembly line
describes one or more processes, which can be assessed to remove “waste”, in
terms of set up time, movement of materials, and stock among others. In contrast,
the traditional construction industry is very labour intensive, result orientated and
less formalised. In the initial stages, groundworks are at risk of being disrupted by
weather conditions and unforeseen ground conditions. Building fabric, like cars, are
made from materials with reliable properties designed by engineers using safety
factors. As such, the fabric construction process could be more organised and
process oriented. Removing the risk presented by groundworks from the
construction timetable would enable greater confidence in the manufacturing
programme.
Womack and Jones (1990) identified that the use of standardised interchangeable
parts was key to improvements in the car industry. Since then, the same principles
21
supported by improved automation have led to customisation. This enables the

production of a wide range of products with little additional cost or effort. Brick
and timber come in standard sizes and can be used to produce standardised
products. However, there has been little development in the provision of
customised products. Component preparation occurs onsite using craft methods,
requiring labourers to measure and cut to fit in each location.
Factory production enables custom components to be delivered when required.

Small scale production would use standard materials to produce their components,
because the supply chain does not exist. However, this would require improved
quality by the suppliers. It has been reported that for some products actual sizes
can differ from specified sizes, for example, timber supplies can vary by several
millimetres in length and depth from the catalogue description (Frankland R,
Discussions about manufacturing constraints, 2013).
This greater quality control is paramount if expectations of increasing thermal

performance, through fabric performance and greater air-tightness, are to be
achieved (Lovell and Smith 2010). The degree of precision offered by factory
methods is necessary to achieve this quality control no matter where the work
takes place, whether on-site or off-site.
Components for the cars arrive “just in time” at the assembly line. Suppliers deliver
parts in small batches so that the stock levels at the car manufacturing plant are
kept low (Coronado Mondragon and Lyons 2008, Womack and Jones 1990). Onsite
elements such as windows are ordered to measure; in the factory, the improved
tolerance would allow them to be ordered using design values.
This greater knowledge over the process and the properties of the component
enables them to be delivered in small batches, as required for just-in time-methods.
Each car and building can be different to the last, but modularity makes making the
variations simple.
Materials used in construction may be fragile. On site it is difficult to keep parts safe
leading to high volumes of waste, and reworking. In a factory there are better
opportunities to store the materials safely. Furthermore, on site, the components
22
are often made to measure with low tolerances. This can require schedules to allow
for a lead time between measurement and assembly. The better control of
tolerances in the factory enables the components to be ordered in advance because
they will fit.
The product offered by traditional construction is altered in order to optimise site

layout and to meet local regulations and demand. In turn, the construction process
varies using different materials, design variations and engineering solutions. Whilst,
the specialisation of the worker in the factory is replicated to a degree on site,
electricians, plumbers etc., the processes between products and site have quite
significant amounts of variation. Unless a pallet of elements with common
properties can be established, the degree of continuous improvement seen
elsewhere will be difficult (Wingfield et al. 2008).
On a traditional site, tradespersons will move from property to property to

complete work. Furthermore, this prevents the optimisation of the workstation
layout. Toyoda researched how the car assembly travelled through the factory, and
considered how often parts were delivered to the workstations and how they fitted
when assembled. Improved efficiencies were achieved by concentrating on the
actions that added value to the car, and removing the need for other “waste
activities” (Ohno 1988, Womack and Jones 1990). On site the removal of waste
activities from movement of materials and people is difficult; moving assembly
work to the factory or to dedicated area on site would assist this process.
Similarly, factory methods have been optimised to minimise set up times, by

addressing batch processing, and the number of preparation methods used. Trades
moving between locations on site requires additional setting up and packing up
time.
The size of the building is considered an issue by Gann (1996). However, modular
construction is successful for aircraft and therefore benefits can be found in large
scale projects. It is transportation that constrains the size of volumetric modules.
More challenging is that buildings are erected in a wide range of locations; the
limits on the module size affects the number of journeys required and thus the cost
and the environmental impacts.
23
The consequences of products’ end of life can significantly affect their total
environmental impact. The recovery of materials at the end of the vehicles life
depends on the recyclability of those materials, whether different materials can be
separated. The plastic parts in a BMW vehicle were redesigned to allow for recovery
and reuse and are now 90% (by weight) recyclable. Seventy five per cent (by weight)
of the vehicle is recovered as metal and 15% (by weight) is recovered as thermo-
plastics (Vandermerwe and Oliff 1991). Furthermore, BMW also recovers high value
engine parts for refurbishment, selling them at 50-70% of the cost of a new part
(Thierry et al. 1995).
The use of contractors, rather than a workforce employed on full-time permanent

contracts, to complete work reduces the level of in-house training and the ability to
achieve continuous improvement, as developed by Toyoda, in the Toyota
Management System (Ohno 1988). Training in construction is, in general, lower
than that within car manufacturing and the skills developed are focused on the
management rather than workers onsite. With better retention of staff, training
could be given to improve workmanship and reduce problems with incorrect
installation.
2.4.4 Summary
The discussion focusses mostly on manufacture and assembly and as such applies to
prefabricated housing unless stated.
As both the car and construction industries are focused on material transformation
processes, there are similarities in their methods. As technically sophisticated
products, cars and houses must be assembled correctly with few faults if they are to
perform correctly. While the product size prevents buildings from being fully
assembled off site, there are commonalties between the two industries and the
potential for them to learn from each other.
Since Ford’s production line was introduced, significant efficiency improvements

have been made in manufacturing. Quality control and consistency are key to these
improvements and must be the focus of efforts for construction. Factory production
represents a better environment to manage processes than the construction site.
24
Prefabricated construction is a mature process, but has not been adopted as widely
in the United Kingdom as in other countries. The Egan report referring to
improvements in lean manufacturing, indicated that two options were available to
the construction industry “…to ignore all of this the belief that construction is so
unique that there are no lessons to be learned; or seek improvement through re-
engineering construction, learning as much as possible from those who have done it
elsewhere” (Egan 1998). This remain relevant today, understanding the key features
of prefabrication and understanding why it has not been as popular will lead to
methods to improve the design.
2.5 PREFABRICATED HOUSING
2.5.1 Introduction
The United Kingdom’s housing construction industry appears to have difficulties

reaping the full benefits of prefabrication, using it produces only 2-7% of all new
build housing (Gann 1996, Hook and Stehn 2005, Steinhardt and Manley 2016).
Other countries produce much greater proportions of new builds, e.g. Germany
(9%) and Sweden (20%) using offsite methods (Steinhardt and Manley 2016).
2.5.2 History
Prefabrication has been used to build housing for over two centuries. British
pioneers and colonialists heading out to the US, Africa and Australia, took the first
flat packed houses, ready to assemble on arrival, with them (Smith 2010). By the
early 20th Century, in the US, prefabricated homes were available to order from
catalogues; the companies selling offered all the necessary parts for the
construction alongside furniture and appliances. During and following the First and
Second World Wars, the UK and the US governments funded schemes to develop
the prefabricated housing methods needed to replace damaged homes and to
house returning soldiers. UK councils continued using the methods into the
following decades to build houses, maisonettes and tower blocks.
25
Initially, prefabrication was limited to preparing materials offsite so that only

assembly was required for construction. Buildings were simple, timber structures
with canvas, shingles or, later, corrugated steel for external surfaces (Smith 2010).
Post war housing used new materials. Factories which had been used to
manufacture munitions were now for housing (Ross 2002). Traditional construction
materials were also scarce but factories which had been used to produce ordnance
were now redundant. The Dorlonco system which consisted of a light weight steel
frame which could be assembled by unskilled labour. Metal laths were fixed to the
external frame and the structure rendered with concrete. Internal linings were
clinker block work and plastered on the internal face (Building Research
Establishment 1987).
Arcon houses were made from a steel frame, with asbestos cement wall panels and
roof panels and glass fibre insulation behind plaster board lining (Davies 2005). The
government allocated £150 million for the provision of temporary housing and led a
programme to develop new construction methods. Steel frames (ARCON), timber
frame (Uni-Seco), precast concrete (Tarran) and aluminium (Aluminium) solutions
were developed. The industry was not wholly convinced; one architect and author
wrote…
“It is yet to be proved that such a conception [the prefabricated house] is an

economic possibility. There are many difficulties to overcome, such as double
handling of the basins and baths, damage to the units in transit and adjustments on
site and the heavy overheads of factory production as opposed to the low
overheads of a small builder.”
(Anthony 1945)
Design of the buildings was driven by the availability of materials and skills. The
products need to be available immediately and assembled quickly by low-skilled
labour. While the design of the Arcon was refined through the construction lifetime,
as the manufacturers gathered field data about the performance of the steel frame,
tolerances were reported to be poor with steel skirting board hiding the gaps
formed where floors and walls met (Davies 2005).
26
Manufacture of houses occurred in factories recommissioned from war activities.

Lustron houses were built on moving assembly lines using automatic metal
processing machinery (The Lustron Corporation 1950). High output was achievable
with the AIROH design coming from the production line every 12 minutes (Davies
2005).
Failures identified were related to materials, labour, and lifespan. While some of
the failures were the results of innovative methods, such as the poor understanding
of concrete spalling and risks associated with asbestos, other failures occurred
because innovators focussed on elements they felt were problematic.
The life span was limited because of the difficulty obtaining replacement parts, and
the difficulty adapting buildings because of complicated structural design. The
expected lifetime of the building means that if parts are proprietary, there is the
risk that they will no longer be manufactured when needed because of aspects such
as improved design, or loss of economies of scale.
Other failings included poor management of transport logistics. Transport is

expensive when compared to materials in construction. Factory production mean
that transport distances of building elements could be large.
Post war, construction of prefabricated housing has remained at a low level.

Councils have adopted the method, hoping to benefit from the economies of scale
they can create. Social housing tower blocks were produced using prefabrication
methods in the 1960s. However, poor structural design was identified during a
design review after an explosion led to significant collapse at Ronan Point, in 1968
(Davies 2005). Subsequently, all designs of large panel systems (LPS), above five
storeys, were assessed and in many cases required strengthening (Davies 2005).
Many of the LPS blocks still stand as social housing but many have problems with
the fabric. Damp is often present, caused by condensation forming at cold bridges
within the structure (BRE 2011). Design problems have become apparent over the
50 years that the buildings have stood.
27
2.5.3 Prefabricated design and construction
Pan et al. (2012) indicated that the traditional methods in the construction industry
are more amenable to gradual evolution rather than radical alteration. However, as
described above, fundamental design principles must be adopted in order to
achieve the benefits of prefabricated methods. Through comparison of the
industries, key elements of manufacturing have been identified to improve the
construction process. Success of these elements in current prefabricated
construction practice is assessed here, supported by the latest research. First, the
organisation of the business is considered. Then the design is addressed, focussing
on the fundamental elements in the preparation and assembly of components in a
factory setting. The use of modular and customised elements in order to enable
product variation while minimising cost is discussed.
Firstly, management are found to be reluctant to change and the risks of adoption
are perceived as greater than the expected benefits (Nadim and Goulding 2010)
indicating that lack of awareness of the benefits, recognised decades ago (Egan
1998, Latham 1994) remains. This lack of awareness has led to a lack of skills. Skills
are required at all levels including contract managers, supply chain, onsite design
teams (Wesz et al. 2018) and in the factory (Banihashemi et al. 2018, Said et al.
2017).
Companies which manage both onsite and offsite processes have been shown to be
successful (Jonsson and Rudberg 2014), in part, because they take ownership of the
industrial design process.
Often, prefabrication is treated as a new technology and then adopted at

construction stage (Jonsson and Rudberg 2014, Pan and Sidwell 2011, Pan et al.
2012). Where, the decision to adopt prefabrication is made at manufacturing stage,
building designers have been prevented from integrating well established
principles, such as standardisation, mass production, interchangeability and flow,
into the design (Gann 1996, Jonssonand Rudberg 2014, Pan et al. 2012, Smith 2011,
Sparksman et al. 1999). These principles require significant change in design
approach from traditional methods (Koskela 1992).
28
Standardisation is the creation of panels and elements which are repeatable, either
through common dimensions or the use of identical interfaces. The build up of
components to create modules is shown in Figure 3 and definitions are provided in
Table 2. Cutting machines have accurate scales for preparing component sizes this
reduces the amount of work required to measure and fit parts, as seen in traditional
methods (Gann 1996). Mass production results from standardisation and allows the
improved efficiency of manufacture because waste is minimised and setup costs are
shared across many units (Gann 1996, Smith 2011).
Panel Component
Building
Module Element panel Component
Figure 3: The constituent parts of a prefabricated building. TOP : Panel assembly. Bottom:
Volume assembly
Table 2: Definition of parts in prefabricated construction.

Unit Composition Description
Material One material Material as supplied to factory or site
Component Single material Prepared for assembly
Panel Built from components Performs a variety of functions
Element Built from panels and/or Performs function within the building
components
Module Built from several elements Combination of several element
Building Built from elements or Fully assembled product
modules
Interchangeability evolved from standardisation, enabling many of the benefits of

standardisation to be maintained, while increasing variation across products. It is
achieved by using similar designs across a range of modules, by maintaining
interface design, material type, connectors etc. but allowing variation by adopting a
modular approach to the design.
Traditional construction was focused on transformation, breaking down the work

into tasks and managing these to minimise cost. Koskela (2003) argued that flow
29
and value must join transformation in order to gain the improvements that the
industry has been looking for.
The benefits of moving construction processes to the factory are limited unless the
design effort addressing the component design is accompanied by focus placed on
the manufacturing processes.
Standardisation and interchangeability are often viewed with caution by designers,

who see them as restricting the capacity for product customisation. This is
supported by (Said et al. 2017) who showed that total fabrication cost and design
flexibility behaved in conflict during panel design.
By moving production inside a factory, the work processes can be managed more
easily. Time lost onsite due to poor weather is avoided, improving certainty of cost
and timescales (Gibb and Isack 2003). Quality assurance checks that would be
difficult to complete onsite can be designed into the process; and as long as
assembly on site is not complicated by offsite design , there will be improvements
to quality (Gibb and Isack 2003).
Work stations can be set up allowing work to be undertaken at a comfortable height

with easy access to where the work is required (Gann 1996, Smith 2010). Teams can
be more easily managed such that conflicts for space are avoided (Ohno 1988,
Womack and Jones 1990). Work can be easily organised so that “break and fix up”
can be avoided (Smith 2010). These lead to improved quality and improved
timescales.
The benefits of prefabrication, detailed above, are most often related to cost,
quality and time. The improvements that lead to these benefits also provide
positive sustainability benefits.
Prefabricated methods reduce labour costs through several mechanisms. Firstly, by

stabilising the workflow, a permanent team can be employed which reduces human
resources expenditure. The improved safety, produced by reducing the time spent
onsite, reduces time lost to sickness. These improvements result in social benefits,
producing greater security in employment for the labour force, and reducing the
level of health and safety risks that they are exposed to.
30
Improved quality is the result of having standardisation and greater control of the
process in the factory environment. Standardisation reduces the amount of
component reworking and the factory environment reduces reworking required
because of accidental damage. The reduction in reworking reduces material use,
which leads to reduce the embodied environmental costs. Banihashemi et al. (2018)
showed how parametric design could be used with modular coordination to
minimise waste. Shewchuk and Guo (2012) addressed panel stacking during
transport.
Improvements in construction time, primarily results from having works occurring

concurrently onsite and within the factory. By reducing the work occurring
concurrently on site, there is reduction in health and safety risk onsite because
there are fewer activities which must negotiate each other. Within the factory,
workflow has been addressed using optimisation techniques (Li et al. 2017, Wesz et
al. 2018).
The research covers a wide range of parameters but only addresses their
relationships in discrete couplings. Widening the scope so that the relationship
between different areas of design decision-making can be explored as required.
2.6 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
Large scale production of housing is required to meet current demand. However, it

has been shown that the increase in production could lead to negative impacts on
sustainability. Methods to reduce the negative impacts are required.
The literature compared prefabricated construction with manufactured products,

particularly from the car industry. While differences were observed, similar product
features and design processes were evident. The similarities between the
construction industry and car industry suggest that lessons from the car industry
could be transferable.
The car industry has addressed many issues within its manufacturing process by
improving the design process. It is proposed that systematic design tools, which
have led to large improvements to the car industry, could be adapted for use in
construction design. Improvements achieved by systematic design, include
31
reductions in materials, decreased energy demand to manufacture the product and

reduced waste.
Prefabricated construction brings construction closer to the car industry in terms of

the manufacturing process. The literature review described the potential for
prefabricated construction methods to provide sustainable housing. Prefabricated
construction has previously been used to meet demand in periods of resource and
economic scarcity. Presently, prefabricated methods for housing have not been as
successful or widely adopted as expected.
Jin et al. (2018) identified areas of prefabricated construction research which

required attention; the research question addresses two of the needs by focusing
on integrating Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA and sustainability into
prefabricated building and the creation of a wider evaluation system of the
construction performance.
Whole life design tools to ensure the sustainability of construction have been
shown to be limited with design tools having a greater focus on the in-use stage.
While the in-use phase of the building lifetime has a greater impact, the designer
has greater control over decisions and impacts produced during construction, and
so the design stage should receive careful attention. Furthermore, construction
phase decisions affect the global supply chain, and the workforce; if the
construction phase is not considered then these stakeholders are ignored and the
consequences can be fatal.
Tools, available to support the sustainable construction, focus on the overall

development characteristics, and where construction stages is considered, they are
suited to traditional onsite methods.
A new tool for use in the early design stages of building design is required and is the
focus of this research. The tool assists decision making during the design of
prefabricated production of housing. The tool focuses on whole life impact of
manufacture and assembly, by choices such as material, component design and
structure.
32
2.6.1 Research targets
Based on the literature review the research addressed the use of engineering design
methods in construction, with the aim of improving sustainability. This research
extended previous work by incorporating a wider range of sustainability issues into
the single design tool, the SCDP. It also addressed a broader range of design
parameters.
Other tools address the in-use stage of the building lifetime. This tool focuses on
the construction process. It looks at the development of a single building, and works
at the component level of decision making.
The application of the adjusted design method was used to create a range of
solutions. These solutions were assessed for their sustainability. The research
expresses the power of the design decisions to impact sustainability throughout the
building lifetime.
33
Methods Ruth Sutton
3 METHODS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The literature review explored the research problem in the context of existing
knowledge. It identified areas where knowledge was incomplete and proposed a
research problem. This chapter addresses the problem through the lens of
academic research methods.
Academic research pursues knowledge and understanding. By using repeatable

processes rigorous methods allow others to recreate the research. Through the
development of theories, based on the observation and examination of hypotheses
that extend the model, new knowledge can be established.
This chapter proposes novel research, adapting existing methods and applying them
to a new context. This chapter outlines the new methods and defends their
application in this case.
3.2 RESEARCH THEORY
The scientific method involves exploring relationships between chosen parameters.

Hypotheses propose descriptions of how the world works in terms of the defined
parameters. In order to test the hypothesis, an experiment is designed which allows
for data collection within a defined range of conditions. The validity of a hypothesis
is determined by how well it describes the relationship between the data.
Greatest confidence in conclusions drawn from research is when conditions are

controlled, where parameters can be clearly defined and the influence of external
factors can be removed. In contrast, where research is undertaken in “real
conditions” and controlling other conditions is not possible, the phenomenon
investigated cannot be isolated. In these conditions, many mechanisms may be
considered when exploring the phenomena. In these conditions, case study
research looks to expose the relationships responsible and describe how they
present.
35
Where a single, or small number of case studies are used, large numbers of
variables are considered. This allows many possible relationships to be explored and
inductive reasoning applied to create knowledge. This does not mean that
hypotheses are not required, as these determine the framework within which the
research is created.
Case studies use a “thick” method (a more or less comprehensive examination of a

phenomenon) in a real life context (Gerring 2007). While multiple case studies are
often considered to be more valuable, and more similar to carrying out a set of
experiments (Yin 2009), the single case study enables greater depth to be achieved.
Construction research often involves case studies for completed projects. Historical
data and information from the actors provide a rich data set. However, comparably
few examples are found of research taking place alongside business activities. Such
research would be intrusive on day to day practice, commercially sensitive, and
would have to adapt to the business’ programme rather than the researcher’s.
Action research methods allow for information to be gathered as the research

progresses, and for methods to be adapted in response to the results as they
become available, enabling research to be completed within the business context.
During action research, the investigator may directly affect the results and as such
they must take care to understand any influence they have. Similarly, the other
actors in the project will affect the research outcomes.
3.3 OUTLINE METHOD
This section gives a brief overview of the research steps. The structure of the
research followed an adapted scientific method is shown in Figure 4. The research
method adopted was essentially exploratory. The research aimed to create a design
method which produces a sustainable construction process.
The first stage addressed the problem. The literature review explored the context in
which the problem is set. Through the critical appraisal of existing research, the
nature of the issues and current knowledge was established. With the problem
clearly defined, methods to find solutions were identified.
36
Methods Ruth Sutton
Literature Review
Identify current knowledge Identify gaps in knowledge Define problem to be solved
Method
Develop new design tool Develop methods to assess sustainability
Case study
Test effectiveness of the Test the sensitivity of the
Assess usability of the tool
tool tool
Results
Describe the Collect output data Collect data for Compare solutions
modified design for case study conceptual with traditional
process baseline solutions, method
Conclusions
Relate the output of the
Discuss whether the model
meets the aims
casestudy to curent Identify new knowledge.
knowledge
Figure 4: Research method
A new design method was developed by adapting design methods used within
other specialisms. In order to assess whether the method could create more
sustainable construction methods it was tested using a case study. The design
method was applied to a “real life” example. The effectiveness of the tool is tested
by comparing the sustainability of the design solutions with a baseline case, which
will be a traditional construction method.
A design process used for product design in mechanical engineering was adapted
for use in prefabricated construction incorporating sustainability requirements into
the design aims of the tool.
The overall sustainability of the design solutions was tested by calculating a

sustainability score. The relative importance of issues were determined and a
numerical weighting to reflect the relative importance of criteria in this construction
37
context was adopted. A single score was produced to describe the sustainability of
the solution.
The results are presented in two parts. The first describes the design process
applied to the case study. The second part details the scoring of the design
solutions. Success of the design tool is measured by the improvement of
sustainability against that of a traditional construction method.
Finally, the discussion and conclusion discuss the effectiveness of the design tool
and how it informs our understanding of sustainable construction in this context. It
compares the findings to other research findings in the field and describes where
new knowledge has been achieved.
3.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
The aims and methods of the project are constrained by the context of the
research. For a business to engage in sustainable activities implies that the social,
economic and environmental impacts of its activities have been identified,
considered and addressed. The construction activities take place within a capitalist
economic model. As such, the environmental and social benefits are constrained by
the costs of the design decisions.
The triple bottom line was used as the sustainability model with social,
environmental and economic issues as the focus. Sustainability can be addressed by
minimising the impacts, or by offsetting the impacts of the process. Offsetting and
technological fixes allow the negative impacts to be produced during production
and then corrected by undertaking activities which repair the damage, or by
supporting the communities and ecosystems to adapt. In the design process the
product design should be optimised before production is automated so that the
benefits are maximised (Pahl et al. 1988). Similarly, the negative impacts should be
minimised, prior to applying any fixes. It was assumed that sustainability is a
necessary activity and minimising negative impacts is preferred over the use of a
technological solution.
38
Methods Ruth Sutton
The most sustainable design is not a defined fixed point, independent of context,
but instead will be a balance of the impacts of a project, where a stakeholder has
defined the relative importance of the issues.
3.5 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN PROCESS (SCDP)
Systematic design offers a structured method to support the creative process. The
systematic design process places the customer’s functional requirements at the
centre of a structured method for the product development. Taking a project from
product specification through to its delivery, the method describes routines which
assist the identification and exploration of innovative solutions. The systematic
design process, described by Pugh (1991) and Pahl, Beitz et al. (1988), is the spine of
the new SCDP. Including sustainability as a functional requirement ensures that it is
accounted for in the design. The design process is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Sustainable Construction Design Tool (SCDP) process
39
3.5.1 Product specification and functional requirements
The first stage establishes the characteristics of a novel product or a product to

compete against an existing offering, creating a specification from which the design
space begins to be plotted.
A product design specification (PDS) was developed using Pugh’s (1991) list of
requirements for consideration; a description of the building as a product was
created. Information used was gathered from a range of sources including existing
businesses, best practice design guides, legislation and mortgage requirements.
From the list, key features of importance, to the customer and the business and
legal requirements were selected; these formed the constraints.
Pahl and Beitz (1992) present lists of categories to consider when creating the PDS.
The categories spur aims, best practice and competitors’ performance to be
considered and catalogued.
The resulting specification defines the product, providing a list of targets and
constraints. Some requirements must be met, some must be avoided and some
should be optimized.
3.5.1.1 Sustainability Issues
A literature review, focusing on sustainability assessment in the construction

industry, was undertaken. Academic papers, institutional guidance, design tools and
corporate sustainability reports were included. In order to ensure the impacts
would be measurable, papers using metrics or targets were filtered for inclusion in
the assessment.
3.5.1.2 Conceptual Design
The conceptual design “specifies the design solution” (Pugh 1991). The conceptual
design process involves finding solutions to the functional requirements based on
the “flow of energy, materials and signals”. Pahl, Beitz et al. (1988) recommends
that this is approached using a block diagram which can assist the removal of
prejudices towards preferred solutions. Feasible solutions are developed and
40
Methods Ruth Sutton
refined using tools which aim to optimise the functional requirements and aspects
of the manufacture and assembly.
Functional requirements were developed from the PDS to describe the operation of
the product. Once the functional requirements were clearly established, the
different ways in which the operations can be met using a series of functions were
explored. Starting with structures describing mechanical, electrical and chemical
actions, which either singly or in combination, in parallel or consecutively, produced
the functional requirements, functional abstractions were developed (Pahl, Beitz et
al. 1988). Sketches and text were used to shows the working structure of the
product (Moultrie and Maier 2014, Pahl et al. 1988).
Abstract solutions to the requirements were identified for the key functional
requirements. Abstract solutions did not describe construction solutions, but
instead showed physical arrangements, or mechanical methods to achieve the
functional requirement. By describing how requirements could be achieved in the
abstract, novel solution types could be explored without the constraint of
established construction methods.
The working principles were combined to create solutions. These were presented as
a table. The combinations were then tested and dismissed if they were not possible,
or if they failed to meet the key design constraints identified within the
specification.
3.5.2 Embodied design
The first stage of the embodiment of the design is the identification of the main
design constraints. Pahl and Beitz (1988, pg. 167) identify the size, the arrangement
of the product elements and material requirements as key requirements.
3.5.2.1 Design for Assembly
Design for assembly was addressed for two phases. Firstly, the assembly of
panels/elements onsite was considered; then, the assembly of components to
produce the panels themselves was addressed.
41
Assembly times for the panels were calculated using catalogue tables in Boothroyd
(1994). Assembly timings were the product of the component characteristics. The
form and symmetry of parts, and the type and positioning of fixings were reviewed
to ensure the engagement of components cannot be completed incorrectly but that
the ergonomics of assembly is ensured. The designs were reviewed with respect to
the storing and handling of parts, identifying, selecting and moving components.
Data provided by Boothroyd (1994) was available for sizes up to 3.2m. In the
factory, handling of pieces above the size limit used the maximum assembly time
given.
Identifying handling times for onsite assembly was more difficult. Detailed
descriptions of the tasks, data taken from Boothroyd (1994), industry data and
assumptions relating to site layout were used to give estimated times.
3.5.2.2 Design for manufacture
Design for manufacture optimises the manufacturing cost by minimising material,

labour and complexity. The number of parts can be minimised by only creating
additional parts where mechanically, chemically or physically necessary. Fewer
parts minimises handling during manufacture and assembly and reduces machine
set up, and it reduces the number of interfaces between parts and the number of
connections required. The design process requires every part to meet one of the
following requirements:
• Does the part need to move with respect to the rest of the assembly?
• Does the part need to be of a different material or be isolated from the rest
of the assembly?
• Does the part need to be separate in order to enable assembly or

disassembly?
(Appleton, Garside 2000)
Once a minimum number of parts was established, their manufacture was

considered. Handling and preparation of parts was affected by the materials’
properties and the component form. Manufacturing times for the components were
42
Methods Ruth Sutton
calculated. Although manufacturing costs are available for machined parts, injection
moulded parts, die cast parts, sheet-metal stampings and powder metal parts
(Boothroyd 1994). A database for timber machining was identified, instead typical
set-up times and cutting rates were provided by a factory equipment supplier.
Simple component forms, minimising the number of faces and enclosed spaces are
cheapest to produce and minimise production waste. Simplifying manufacture
could require splitting a component into two parts, or altering the configuration.
Design engineering for manufacture balances these elements. Considering each
independently, may lead to conflicting design aims for each component.
Optimisation finds the combination such that the functional requirements are best
achieved.
To achieve the best whole life performance of the product other properties are
considered. In mechanical products this also includes designing for creep and
relaxation, and designing against corrosion damage. Here, the latter has been
adapted as design for maintenance which ensures materials that are exposed to the
elements, can be replaced during the buildings lifetime.
Materials supplied to the construction industry are available in standard sizes and
these materials were used as the input materials to the manufacturing process.
3.5.2.3 Design for maintenance
Maintenance is required to ensure materials function correctly throughout the

product lifetime. Most efficient material use occurs when the life span of the
materials is a factor of the building life span.
The lifetime of the building was defined in the functional unit of the building,
described as 60 years. Replacements factors were not adopted as part of the
assessment. Instead it was assumed that all of the materials would be replaced at
the end of their lifetime. As such, a material with a lifetime of 25 years would be
replaced at 25 years, and 50 years.
43
3.5.2.4 Evaluating Designs
The evaluation of solutions occurs throughout the design process. Primarily, the
design solutions must meet the functional requirements and should be disregarded
if they do not.
Beyond the functional requirements, there are design constraints which determine
the feasibility of the solution. These include financial, legal and manufacturing
constraints.
Some solutions will be found to be unfeasible and Pahl et al. (1988) explain that for
solutions that do not work should be disregarded and that most effort should be
placed on the solutions which appear most promising. However, Short and Lynch
(2004) argue that all solutions should continue to be explored for as long as
possible, so that the maximum information can be gained about the product in the
design space. The justification for the selection of the solutions to be further
developed at each stage of the design is provided within the result section.
3.6 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
3.6.1 Scope
The assessment of sustainability needs a clear definition of the scope, including the
purpose of the assessment, definition of the product, activities included or excluded
and the issues of concern. The scope was developed from the information in the
product specification and the a literture review.
The sustainability assessment was undertaken in accordance with ISO 14040

(International Organization for Standardization 2015) which detail the principles for
Life Cycle Assessment. The functional unit and system boundary have been
developed in acordance with industry standards and are described below, Table 3.
3.6.1.1 Clarification of the task
The sustainability assessment enabled the comparative assessment of sustainability

of the manufacture and assembly of the outline building. The assessment also
44
Methods Ruth Sutton
contributed knowledge of the design space to assist design decisions. Bassed on the
results, the most sustainable method can be selected.
3.6.1.2 Functional unit and system boundary
The research addressed the design of a single house layout. Factory and site
location parameters are fixed. The design life time of the house was 60 years.
The design tool focused on the production of the house; as such, only phases
related this will be included. Materials flowed through processes and activities
performed to them were recorded. Materials arrived at the factory or on site as
“raw materials” from the supplier. Recycled materials are described as “raw
material” in the product phase. They enter the manufacturing process with the
same properties as “new” materials. Raw materials were manufactured creating
components and waste. The components were assembled to produce elements for
the building. Throughout the in-use phase, materials were replaced; the frequency
was determined by the life span. Changes caused by updating the property or
changing fashions were not included. The maintenance on the building creates
waste through the removal of material that has reached the end of its life span and
new waste is produced by the replacement of the elements/components removed
(Silvestre et al. 2014). At the end of life, the waste pathway for the building was
included.
Table 3: Life cycle phases included in model.

LCA boundaries Life Cycle phases/ LCA Life cycle phase designation and description Included
information modules
Product phase A1 Raw material extraction and ✓
processing, processing of secondary
input
Cradle to gate
A2 Transport to the manufacturer

A3 Manufacturing
Construction process A4 Transport to the building site ✓
phase A5 Installation into the building ✓
Use phase –information B1 Use or application of the installed ✓
modules related to the product
building fabric B2 Maintenance ✓
B3 Repair
B4 Replacement
Cradle to cradle
Cradle to grave
Gate to grave
B5 Refurbishment
Use phase – information B6 Operational energy use
module related to the B7 Operational water use
operation of the building
45
LCA boundaries Life Cycle phases/ LCA Life cycle phase designation and description Included
information modules
End of life phase C1 De-construction, demolition ✓
C2 Transport to waste processing, ✓
C3 Waste processing for reuse, recovery
and /or recycling
C4 Disposal ✓
Benefits and loads beyond D Reuse, recovery and/or recycling
system boundary
3.6.2 Inventory analysis
Collating the inventory involved identifying all important materials and activities
within the study boundary. Material and energy flows were recorded in order to
identify the impacts. The model aimed to account for 95% of the fabricated
materials. However, where materials and assembly processes were identical across
all solutions the element was not included; such as windows, doors, guttering and
roof trusses. Internal fixtures and fittings, such as carpets, kitchens and bathrooms,
were not included because the customer would be given freedom to choose these
for themselves.
The boundary conditions detailed BRE Global Methodology for Environmental

Profiles of Construction Products (Building Research Establishment 2008) were
adopted. The conditions are repeated here with any adaptations made for the
model.
• Witihin the definition of the functional unit, 95% of all materials were included,
excluding only materials which were present in small volumes.
• The impacts of capital equipment, such as energy and cost to run offices,
factories and the support systems therein were not included. This did not
extend to the power use of machinery, which was included within the inventory.
• Within the BRE methodology, construction impacts were not included. Within
the model, cost for the use of crane is included, however, fuel impacts were not
included separately. Time taken to assemble modules on site was considered
and associated labour costs were included .
• Site wastage during the manufacture process is included. Wastage rates for
prefabricated methods were assumed based on reported literature estimates.
46
Methods Ruth Sutton
Waste during traditonal construction was already included within the data
sources.
• The quantity and transport of any significant materials used (e.g. in painting and
varnishing) over the lifetime of a product will be included.
• The BRE methodology includes flooring. This was not included within the model.
• What allows the designer to consider the overall impact from quantities of
different materials required to produce different building solutions without
having to consider differences in energy consumption resulting from different
thermal resistance values. In general, comparison between elements with the
same functional unit can ignore lifetime energy use within the assessment.
However, care should be taken where aspects such as thermal mass may have
implications on energy consumption in the building.
• The impact of the demolition process is not included. Data sets are not widely
available and the impact is considered to be small and difficult to allocate to
specific materials.
• The boundary of the LCA includes the impacts of disposal of all materials.
Models for the amounts for construction materials estimated to go to landfill,
incineration, recycling and reuse. The environmental impact included these
impacts. Cost of the disposal of the materal was determined using costs
provided by a local company. Routes for disposal were based on industry
averages.
3.6.3 Impact assessment
Sustainability is understood in terms of the impact of activities on issues important

to the stakeholders. In order to be able to assess the sustainability, these impacts
must be definable, using “aims, objective and scope” (Kaebernick et al. 2003). Only
then can suitable metrics be developed.
Widely recognised metrics were adopted where available, from sources such as the
Green Guide, LEED and BREEAM. In other cases qualitative assessment methods
47
from the literature (Gosling et al. 2013) were adapted to provide quantitative
scores.
The selection of issues is subjective; as such, the process should be transparent to

allow for criticism. The criteria should be comprehensive, applicable, transparent
and practical. Comprehensiveness intends that the scope of the index is fully
covered by all criteria and by being applicable the criteria can be measured in each
of the design solutions. This is balanced by a need for the assessment to be
practicable; it should be possible to gather and analyse data for the metric using the
resources available (Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012).
Criteria were derived from the sustainability requirements described in the product
specification. Constraints for each criterion were then identified and a network of
the relationships between the constraints and the criteria was drawn. This also
allowed the criteria to be checked for redundancy and interdependence.
3.6.3.1 Stakeholders
To the construction firm, the commercial project stakeholders include the

customer, the regulators, the workforce and suppliers. Addressing sustainable
design, stakeholders include more remote actors that have little influence on
decisions but are affected by them. Stakeholders are described in Table 4 the main
stakeholders selected for the design assessment are in bold.
Table 4: Project stakeholders

Stakeholders
Local Customer
Community
Workforce local to the factory
Workforce local to the site
Council
Local businesses
Local environment- ecology, land, local water bodies, ground level air quality
Regional Construction industry
Regional population
Regional economy
Regional environment- ecology, rivers, troposphere
International Raw material suppliers
Global population
Global economy
Global environment- hydrosphere, ecology, troposphere and stratosphere
48
Methods Ruth Sutton
Environmental criteria which correlate to the release of compounds were chosen.

These include compounds which represent a risk of climate change, acid rain
potential, ozone depletion and creation, land, air and water toxicity, human toxicity
and water.
Economic criteria were reviewed. The profitability of the activities was important,
but profit levels cannot be defined at this stage. Creating employment, in the
factory and onsite, support the local economies and is represented by labour cost. A
new business would need investment to set up a factory. Material cost reflects the
cost of the building and is important to the consumer. The cost metric will reflect
elements of each of these.
The social criteria were reviewed. The adaptability of the building, as an indicator of
the potential to extend the lifetime of the building, was considered important.
Health and safety during the build was considered very important. Moving
operations inside of the factory made controlling the process is much easier;
however, the size and weight the components meant that some onsite assembly
would always be necessary. On a larger geographic scale, responsible sourcing of
materials was selected. Impacts on stakeholders can operate over local, regional
and international scales. However, it is recognised that for the small business
holder, managing the chain of custody is onerous.
3.6.3.2 Criteria
Based on the established stakeholders the social, economic and environmental

impacts were identified using a literature search, as detailed in Table 5, Table 6 and
Table 7.
Table 5: Environmental issues identified during the literature review

Environment References
LCA / embodied energy of Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003, Barratt
materials Developments PLC 2013, Berardi 2012, Howarth and Hadfield 2006,
Kubba 2012, Labuschagne et al. 2005, Persimmon 2013
LCA / footprint/ resource scarcity Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003, Howarth,
and Hadfield 2006, Labuschagne et al. 2005, Luttropp and Lagerstedt
2006
LCA/pollution/ contaminants/ Akadiri et al. 2012, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003, Department for
toxicity Communities and Local Government 2010, IKEA 2013, Persimmon 2013,
Sobotka and Rolak 2009
Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003, Barratt
Waste: minimise recycle reuse Developments PLC 2013, Howarth and Hadfield 2006, Kubba 2012,
49
Environment References
Luttropp and Lagerstedt 2006, Persimmon 2013, Sobotka, Rolak 2009
Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003, Berardi
Waste: hazardous material 2011, Labuschagne et al. 2005, Luttropp and Lagerstedt 2006, Sobotka
and Rolak 2009
Climate Change Building Research Establishment 2013, Department for Communities
and Local Government 2010, Kubba 2012, Luttropp and Lagerstedt 2006
Acid rain potential Department for Communities and Local Government 2010
Photochemical smog Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012
Ozone Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012
Energy consumption Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Department for Communities and Local
Government 2010, Howarth and Hadfield 2006, Kubba 2012, Persimmon
2013
Renewable energy Barratt Developments PLC 2013, IKEA 2013
Transport IKEA 2013, Labuschagne et al. 2005, Persimmon 2013
Nature/ Biodiversity Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Building Research Establishment 2013,
Persimmon 2013
Water use on site Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Department for Communities and Local
Government 2010
Water in-use Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012, Department for Communities and Local
Government 2010, Kubba 2012, Sobotka and Rolak 2009
Table 6: Social issues identified during the literature review

Social References
Adaptable /long life Department for Communities and Local Government 2010, IKEA 2013,
Kubba 2012
Housing to meet a mix of needs Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Building Research Establishment 2013,
Persimmon 2013
Affordable Barratt Developments PLC 2013, IKEA 2013, Persimmon 2013)
Impact during construction Department for Communities and Local Government 2010, Howarth
and Hadfield 2006, Persimmon 2013
Reporting and audit Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Building Research Establishment 2013,
Department for Communities and Local Government 2010, Howarth
and Hadfield 2006
Health and safety Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Labuschagne et al. 2005, Persimmon
2013
Locally sourced material Sobotka, Rolak 2009
Noise Howarth, Hadfield 2006
Ethical sourcing Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Building Research Establishment 2013,
Department for Communities and Local Government 2010, IKEA 2013,
Persimmon 2013
Local employment Howarth and Hadfield 2006, Labuschagne et al. 2005, Sobotka and
Rolak 2009)
Local heritage and culture/land Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Building Research Establishment 2013,
use/aesthetics Kubba 2012, Persimmon 2013, Sobotka and Rolak 2009
Infrastructure and service Howarth and Hadfield 2006, Kubba 2012, Persimmon 2013
Listening to stakeholders Howarth and Hadfield 2006, Kubba 2012, Labuschagne et al. 2005,
Persimmon 2013
Occupant experience Department for Communities and Local Government 2010, Kubba 2012,
Labuschagne et al. 2005
50
Methods Ruth Sutton
Table 7: Economic issues identified during the literature review

Economy References
Staff training/CPD staff retention Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Berardi 2012, Labuschagne et al. 2005,
Persimmon 2013
Financial health Labuschagne et al. 2005
Profit to company Barratt Developments PLC 2013, Labuschagne et al. 2005
Good governance Barratt Developments PLC 2013
Long term business model Berardi 2012, Labuschagne et al. 2005
Local employment Labuschagne et al. 2005
Life time cost initial cost, Sobotka and Rolak 2009
maintenance and disposal
Occupant influence Department for Communities and Local Government 2010
Economy national and global Building Research Establishment 2013
equity
Climate change
Water extraction
Mineral extraction
Acid rain potential
Ozone depletion
Resource use
Human toxicity
Environmental
Eco toxicity to fresh water
Ecotoxicity to land
Waste disposal
Sustainability
Higher level nuclear waste
Fossil fuel depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
Acidification
Adaptability
Social Health and Safety
Responsible sourcing
Economic Cost
Figure 6: Sustainability hierarchy
A literature search identified sustainability issues of importance to the construction

industry. The key issues, in the context of the prefabrication of the fabric, were
selected, and criteria were developed. Criteria are shown in Figure 6 and
summarised in the text below.
51
3.6.3.3 Metrics
Environmental
A full detailed life cycle assessment addressing the lifetime impact each of the
assembly of all the components would provide the most accurate value for this
metric. The data required would include material volumes, lifespan, environmental
impacts for each material, power consumption during manufacturing, transport and
waste pathways.
Creating the inventory for these processes would be time consuming and expensive.
Furthermore, environmental impact data available is is not precise enough to
accurately reflect the difference in performance between the small changes
affected by the design process As such, a full LCA was considered inappropriate and
more general metric was selected.
The Green Guide to Specification was adopted for environmental assessment. The
assessment addresses the impacts of the release of pollutants to the geosphere,
hydrosphere and atmosphere. It also considers the extraction of limited natural
resources. A list of the metrics used are included in Appendix A.
Ratings, between A+ and G, are given to assemblies to describe the whole lifetime
impact. By using assemblies, the embodied impacts of the materials and their in-use
performance are reflected in a single value. Their incorporation into the
sustainability assessment enable simple assessment of environmental impacts
which otherwise require complicated lifecycle assessment.
The Green Guide applies a rigorous Life Cycle Assessment method to assess the
element assemblies. The guide has a list of completed, audited assembly types
which provide details of materials and element assemblies. The scores are based on
a standardised functional unit which enables direct comparison. As such, the use
of proxy assemblies to compare very different construction styles is considered
appropriate an the early stages.
For the purpose of this research the closest assembly was chosen. The Green Guide
offers a calculator for BREEAM assessors to build their own assessment using their
specification. However, this was not available so the generic elements were used. In
52
Methods Ruth Sutton
future research it would possible to use the BRE’s proprietary calculator to calculate
more accurate ratings.
When materials for manufacture were selected, possible solutions were reviewed.
A minimum element performance, above “B”, was required for the element design
to be progressed further.
At the embodied design stage, a score describing the environmental impact was
produced. Element scores as given in the Green Guide were converted to a
numerical score, as described in Table 8. The impact score was adjusted to reflect
the proportion of the material in the building.
Table 8: Environmental impact scores (Anderson and Shiers 2009)

Element score
A+ 10
A 6
B 2
C-G 0
Energy consumption was included in environmental data. Cost of energy consumed

for machining processes in the factory was included. Dust extraction, lighting and
general factory building consumption was not included. The cost of energy
consumption on for crane activity was included as part of a day rate for the crane,
provided by a local company. Other on site energy consumption was not included,
because it is expected to be low (Anderson and Shiers 2009).
The environmental impacts of the element and module transport were included as
part of the environmental assessment (Anderson and Shiers 2009). Costs were
determined using data from a local haulage company.
Labour spent on machining and assembling, onsite and in the factory was included.
Factory and site management and administration were not included.
Economic: Cost
Costs to the company occur in different forms. Assessment of the cost is achieved
by considering the three elements of investment, materials and labour. Scores are
given based on the relative cost of the solutions under consideration.
53
At conceptual design stage the cost of investment is used to assess the whether the
solution is feasible. Initial costs to the business will occur to prepare the design, and
set up manufacture. Factory premises and equipment is a long term commitment.
The design establishes whether equipment must be bespoke or may be resold.
At embodied design stage a detailed cost model was produced which included the
cost of materials, manufacture, labour and transport.
Material costs were based on the component size, and included 10% waste (Cuéllar-
Franca and Azapagic 2012). Where required, the cost of materials replaced during
maintenance were included. The cost of materials used for maintenance did not
incorporate any inflationary price increase.
The cost of manufacture and assembly of the components, in the factory,

comprised of labour for machining and assembly, and power during machining. On
site assembly was either by hand, which had labour cost alone, or required the use
of a crane. The price of a crane was calculated using a day rate.
Waste materials at the end of life were accounted for. Prices were obtained from a
waste disposal company and assumed that materials were separated, as detailed in
Appendix C.
Social: Responsible sourcing
Responsible sourcing assessed the materials supplied and their suppliers. Three
aspects of responsible sourcing were assessed: environment assurance, chain of
custody, and internal business practices. One credit could be achieved in each,
giving a maximum of three credits. Credits could be gained by providing evidence of
being audited or accredited by recognised scheme, see Appendix A. In order to not
be unduly penalise small companies which do not have the resources to undertake
often cumbersome accreditation processes, half points were made available if the
company had reports of reviewed in house assessments. Three points are credited if
an external report produced in accordance with the GRI reporting guidelines is
available.
54
Methods Ruth Sutton
Where material types were identified during the conceptual design stage, products
from the suppliers that performed best against the responsible sourcing
assessment.
Social: Health and Safety
Health and safety risks associated with the construction was assessed following
embodied designs. At the conceptual design stage, the risks were not apparent. The
construction was split into six key phases, as found in the LCA, Table 3. Possible
events from hazardous activities included falling, exposure to weather, handling,
exposure to toxic materials, injury caused by equipment, multiple activities in a
small area, Table 9. The risk score of the incident was the product of consequence
and likelihood, Table 10. The higher the score, the greater the risk as shown in
Table 11.
Table 9: Potentially hazardous activities
Handling Risk of falling Exposure to toxic Exposure to the Risk of injury Multi activities in
materials elements (equipment) small area
Lifting materials Trip hazards in Inhalation of Exposure to cold Minor cut to Trip hazards
factory materials during hand
cutting
Lifting panels in Trip hazard on Treatment of Exposure to heat Serious blade Equipment injury
factory site material injury (hospital)
(preservatives)
Lifting panels on Fall from height: Irritant Excessive damp Collision with
site scaffold and cold vehicle (in
factory)
Moving panels Fall from height: Collision with

using crane ladder vehicle (onsite)
Moving Fall from height:

construction roof
materials to
height (on
scaffolding)
Table 10: Phases and risk description during prefabricated construction

Activities Consequence Likelihood
A: Manufacture of parts in factory 1) Recordable incident Low- (1)
(>3days incapacitated ) remote, unlikely
B: Assembly of parts in factory 2) Reportable incident Medium- (2)
(7 days off work) possible, could occur some
time
55
C: Preparation of parts on site 3) Death of a person High- (3)

Likely occur
repeatedly/event only to
be expected
D: Assembly of parts on site
E: Maintenance
F: End of life
G: Transport
Table 11: Health and safety scoring
Death* 3 6 9
Consequence of incident
Reportable* 2 4 6
Recordable 1 2 3
reported to the
Low Med High

*must be
Likelihood
HSE.
Social: Adaptability
For a building to be sustainable, it must be valuable to the householder throughout

its lifetime otherwise it may be become unusable and require replacement.
Furthermore the building design should incorporate flexibility, otherwise the
business would be required to invest in facilities to make changes, by investing in
additional design process, or machinery.
The adaptability metric assesses the feasibility to make changes to the building
throughout its lifetime. The assessment addressed the flexibility of the building
design during three phases of the building lifetime, during design, in-use and end of
life.
During the design stage, influence of changing climate on the building across its
lifetime must be considered. As such, functional requirements, which reflect this
need are necessary. The ability to change the building during the in-use phase of
the life will increase lifetime of the building. For a household the capacity to adapt a
56
Methods Ruth Sutton
building rather than relocate is valuable. The ability for a house to change to reflect
changes to lifestyle increases the expected lifetime. Finally, the ability to change the
use of the building at the end of the as-designed life, and to use part or all of the
fabric as part of a new building.
3.6.3.4 Scoring
Each metric produced a score determined by the assessment method. In order to

aggregate the scores a process of normalisation and weighting was undertaken.
Normalisation enables scores across the different metrics to be compared. It

creates “compatible measurements” (Jahan and Edwards 2013). For each metric,
the scores were normalised to give a value out of 10. Triantaphyllou (2000)
indicates that normalisation should be undertaken once alternative solutions have
been identified and a range is known. This allows the assessor to identify the range
of values for the metric and from the range a scoring method can be identified,
typically linear or logarithmic scales are used. Normalisation methods are adopted
so that the metric becomes unitless and can be added together. A linear distribution
was assumed for the scores of each metric.
The relative importance of sustainability issues are not the same for each individual.
Any design tool must include a method to create the relative weightings. By
consulting industry specialists their knowledge is captured in the weighting.
Business’ and customers’ preferences can be captured by using the business
knowledge of the market and issues. The development of weightings should be
transparent and so a user can interpret the results of an assessment.
For the purposes of analysis, there should be mutual independence of preferences,

ensuring that each criterion can be assessed without knowing the scores gained for
other criterion. Double counting should be avoided to prevent alternative solutions
gaining high index scores because certain properties contributed towards the score
in more than one criterion.
Simple ranking is an often used weighting method. The stakeholder orders the
criteria in order of importance on an ordinal scale. There is no scale to the ranking
so the weightings increase in equal increments, reducing the level of complexity
57
that can be reflected in the scores. However, where many stakeholders’ opinions
are being represented, and a single solution only provides a representation of their
views it offers a simple methodology, removing the need to apply “unrealistic
assumptions about the underlying distributions” (Akadiri and Olomolaiye 2012).
A linear additive model is used here to create a scoring for the alternative solution.
Linear additive methods have three key stages, scaling of the performance of
criteria, weighting the importance of criteria, and determining the relationship
between the weight and the scaling. These are then combined with the weighting to
create a criteria score. The sum of these values is the sustainability index, as shown
in Table 12.
Table 12: Sustainability index weighting

Economic Social Environmental
Cost Health and Responsible Adaptability Aggregated environmental
Safety sourcing impacts
0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33
3.6.3.5 Data quality
The assessment of the design method requires both qualitative and quantitative
data. Data was collected, where possible using the most recent accurate and
relevant data.
Data relating to materials were either supplied by the manufacturer or were taken
from generic sources. Environmental data was collected from BRE Global
Environmental Profile Certification Scheme and BRE Global Environmental Profiles
Scheme. The quality of the data used is detailed in the BRE Global environmental
profiles methodology. Their assessment of data quality has been included in Table
13.
Table 13: Data quality framework adapted from BRE Global ltd 2008
QUALITY GOOD FAIR ACCEPTABLE
Age From 2010 Between 2005-2009 From 2000-2004
Geography UK* Europe Rest of World
Source Trade Association Single Manufacturer Single Manufacturer
Representativeness Over 50% of industry 20-50% of industry Less than 20% of industry
LCA Practitioner LCA verified by 3rd Party Non-verified Student, Non-verified
Methodology Transparent and Some transparency or No transparency, unclear
including all inputs and some aspects missing methodology or significant
58
Methods Ruth Sutton
QUALITY GOOD FAIR ACCEPTABLE

output aspects missing
3.6.3.6 Interpretation
Assessments are undertaken to improve understanding of impacts of products and

processes. Where comparative assessments are completed, relative total scores
help to identify the best. The process of completing the assessment produces
information which enables the designer to identify hotspots, where the impact of
the decisions are significant. The supports designers’ efforts to develop an
understanding of the design space (Baumann and Tillman 2004).
Case Study
In the case study, a traditional brick construction method is compared to new

designs developed using this design tool. The designs developed using the tool
adopt prefabrication and use low carbon materials. These two innovations are
closely linked; the use of prefabrication requires that non-traditional materials are
used. As such, the impact of material choice and the impact of prefabrication
cannot be separated.
Limitations
The reseach is limited to the scope of the design tool. The research does not
present a fully devloped tool but instead explores the impacts during the
conceptual and embodied design stages. This scope of the research restricts the
design tools to addressing the design and manufacture of the building fabric.
Coupled to the limtied scope of the research, the design efforts have been litmed to
the design of components and elements. A structural assessment has not been
completed to ensure the feasibility of the research, instead rules of thumb, often
applied in the ealry stages of design (Pahl et al. 1988) have been adopted. Any
solution would need to be assessed for structural feasibility and finding would need
to be fed back into the design process, if alterations to the design are required. As
such, detailed design would be completed following the embodied design phase.
The use of a single case study restricts the confidence in the wider applicability of
the product design. The sustainability of the solutions will to some degree be
59
dependent on the skills of the designer. The degree of the improvement is partially
affected by the skills employed. However, it is the development and application of
the method which is of interest. As such, it is the degree of improvement between
the traditional construction method and the design solutions.
In all, the research cannot be considered a scientific method and the conclusions
will be limited to informing the success of the method for the case study and the
general findings from the process.
3.7 SUMMARY
This chapter described the methods applied in the research process undertaken.
Methods used by other researchers were compared and most appropriate selected
for adaption to make them suitable for the context of sustainable construction.
Reasoning behind the choices were defended.
Sustainability has been shown to be the balance of competing needs, which is

dependent on context. Based on this, a method to assess the sustainability of any
product has been provided. The sustainability assessment will be used to compare
possible design solutions for the manufacture and assembly of a prefabricated
house. The designs will be developed by the application of a systematic design
method, which has been adapted by extending the scope of the design tools to new
materials, assembly and product requirements.
Using these methods, the next chapter describes the application of the design
process to a case study. A product design method is developed for the
prefabricated house, the design process creates conceptual and embodied design
solutions, and the solutions are assessed using the sustainability assessment
method.
The research will inform how the design process for prefabricated construction
should be directed and the importance of the identified design parameters. The
success of the design tool to produce sustainable solutions for the case study house,
will inform the validity of the design tool and indicate whether the tool should be to
further case studies.
60
Results Ruth Sutton
4 RESULTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 3 describes the SCDP adapted from Pahl et al’s (1988) systematic approach.
Changes to the original process were made to make the process suitable for
application to prefabricated building construction and to incorporate sustainable
requirements. In order to explore the application of the SCDP in real conditions a
case study was employed. In this chapter, the results of the design process are
described alongside the assessment of a traditional construction method.
Comparison between a business-as-usual approach and the improved design was

made in order to assess whether the SCDP is effective. A traditional construction
method was compared to new solutions developed using the SCDP. The
sustainability of the traditional method and the new solutions were calculated using
the sustainability scoring method. shows the design process with information input
and creation.
4.1.1 Company
The case study gathered information from house design and construction business.
At present, the business is a small enterprise run by a single director. The product
considered was small houses, to be built as part of a development within the UK. At
the time of the research, the factory had not been established; as such, the
following assumptions were made.
• The output was approximately 52 buildings per year.
• The factory premises was located in Manchester.
• The company employed the factory labour, while assembly on site was
completed by a construction firm local to the site.
• Small investment capital was available for the set-up of a manufacturing

process.
61
Figure 7: Outline of the building
4.1.2 Outline design
The house was a two storey detached property. Figure 7 shows the outline layout of
the proposed house design. Downstairs, the property comprised a hallway, lounge,
kitchen and dining room. The first floor comprised a landing, two bedrooms and a
bathroom. Minimum dimensions for some areas have been prescribed; otherwise,
minor alterations to the layout could be considered.
Built for the United Kingdom’s market, the building must meet the legislative
requirements for use as a permanent residence. It should have a design life over 60
years in order for it to qualify for a mortgage.
4.1.3 Functional unit
The next section describes the whole life cycle and then outlines the embodied
design process to be taken.
62
Results Ruth Sutton
4.1.3.1 Whole life cycle
The whole life cycle of the building was recorded in order to capture all of the
phases and develop the scope of the design, as described in Table 14; it also acts as
the framework for the inventory
Table 14 Activities during life cycle phases

Traditional Timber frame SIP panel Volumetric
Materials Deliver to site Deliver to Factory Deliver to factory Deliver to factory
Manufacture Preparation of Manufacture of Manufacture of Manufacture of
materials on site components components components in
factory
Assembly Assembly of Assembly of Assembly of Assembly of
materials on site components components components in
factory
Assembly Assembly of panels
in factory
Assembly of panels Assembly of panels Assembly of
on site on site modules on site
Cladding n/a Assembly of Assembly of Assembly of
cladding cladding cladding
Building Building Building Building
In-use: Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
Maintenance
End of life Dissasssmebly and Dissasssmebly and Dissasssmebly and Dissasssmebly and
disposal disposal disposal disposal
The first phase involves the extraction or harvesting and processing of the raw
materials, and could include reprocessing of recycled material, or the refurbishment
of recovered elements. The possible range of processes and geographical locations
in which they could occur are extensive. Activities are managed by others and the
resulting products are purchased to be employed in the manufacturing process. As
such, improvements are outside the control of this project, but selection of
materials can take their sustainability into account. Construction materials are often
specified by their technical properties, and in some cases, require certification, for
example, I joists and C16 timber. Furthermore, many materials are delivered in
standard sizes when purchased from a builder’s merchant; obtaining larger or
custom sizes are possible but there will be a premium to pay.
Materials are transported between the material supplier, the building merchants,
the factory and site and distances can vary significantly. The number of vehicle trips
63
depends on the volumes of the materials transported, but weight is rarely an issue.
Abnormal loads can be transported on a trailer, but will need to be accompanied by
safety vehicles which increases the vehicle mileage and cost, and creates
paperwork.
Manufacturing methods in the factory are determined by the types of materials and
equipment used. Investment in workstations, saws, moulds and other equipment is
a significant cost, and will affect the flexibility of the product design and the rate of
output.
The more simple the design of the components, the easier they are to produce.
Timber cutting involves routers, circular saw and plane saw. Computer Numerical
Control (CNC) routers enable component lists to be programmed and cut. Concrete
panels use moulds which into which the mix is poured and allowed to set over 24
hours. Sandwich panels require similar tools to timber cutting, but also glue
spreading machinery plus clamping tables to prepare the panels.
Assembly processes occur both in the factory and onsite. The shape, weight and
symmetry of the components affect how easy it to orientate and fix them together.
During assembly, handling components presents health and safety concerns. In the
factory, the processes can be controlled and refined, while onsite access constraints
will vary for each location. Onsite conditions may affect the type and cost of lifting
equipment, access may limit the vehicles entering the site. Labour required will be
affected by assembly processes applied.
During the in-use phase, the fabric will suffer from natural wearing and corrosion
and eventually require replacement. When maintenance should be completed will
be dependent on the material life span.
Finally, at the end of life, the building will demolished or dismantled and waste
treatment of the material occurs. Materials will go to landfill, be recycled, or be
reused. If recycled or reused they can be considered to contribute to the feedstock
of raw materials.
64
Results Ruth Sutton
4.2 PRODUCT DESIGN
4.2.1 Introduction
The following sections describe the results of the design process. In order to
describe the results, it has been necessary to impose a linearity to the process.
However, the following should be read with the understanding that many of the
design stages were revisited as the design space became better understood. The
results describe the final outputs and as such, describe the optimised designs and
the accurate assessment of the impacts.
4.2.1.1 Product specification
A product design specification (PDS) of the building lifetime was created using the
building outline, information from the business and the literature review and is
presented in full in Appendix B. The key requirements are described here and
summarised in Table 15
The business indicated that that they intended to use the sustainability of the
building as a selling point; as such, as well as performing sustainably, the palette of
materials chosen should be understood as being sustainable by the public.
The functional requirements were extracted from the full PDS document and
presented alongside the sustainability requirements. Design requirements which
constrain the solution were identified. The combination of the functional
requirements with the constraints defined the design space and all viable solutions
would lie within the design space.
Table 15: Functional requirements identified from the product design specification
Functional Requirements
Two storey building with pitched roof
Internal layout required as described in the building plan
Walls must be solid with little deflection or movement. Loads from building materials, wind, snow and live
loads to be transferred to the foundations.
Maintain internal temperature ~18-21⁰C during occupation.
65
Functional Requirements
Sustainability requirements
Minimise environmental impact to resource and pollution
Minimise cost
Minimise social impact: to householders, to labour and global communities
4.3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
4.3.1 Functional requirements: Building
The conceptual design process unpacks the product requirements to unveil

solutions to the main operations. The building operations were described in order
to create an abstraction of the product requirements. By using abstract descriptions
of the product functions, the designer can develop solutions without preconceived
notions of how they should be formed, maximising the potential for novel solutions.
The functional abstractions are presented in Table 16. Each functional requirement
was considered individually and the abstraction developed by building function
structures and sub function structures.
Table 16: Abstractions of the functional requirements (Pahl et al. 1988)
Multiple spaces interconnected by openings
Openings between internal and external environments
Stable thermal environment
Functional abstraction 1: Create volumes
A volume is contained within surfaces and can be described by the internal and
external environments. Given a surface material, a volume can be created by
producing a pressure difference between the internal and external environments,
like a balloon. In this context, this is not feasible because, among other things, of
the expense of maintaining the pressure difference between the two environments.
Without a differential air pressure, a volume requires structural strength. Materials

must support their self weight and any live loads on the volume. An engineered
structural frame can be designed to support the loads of the building. Efficient
66
Results Ruth Sutton
design will optimise the transference of loads through beams and posts to the pad
foundations. Such a frame allows for a skin to be formed by materials with little
engineering strength; infill panels would only need to be self-supporting.
Thin membrane construction engages the reaction between the structural frame
and the taught skin. Like a tent, the external skin is stretched over rigid, fixed,
elements; the tension in the skin compresses the fixed elements. Any opening in the
fabric must be included during the design of the structure because the skin is
designed to rest in equilibrium.
Finally, load bearing structures have elements (walls, floors, and roof) that are
strong enough to bear their own self weight, dead loads transferred to them and
live loads. Floor and roof elements will be rigid enough to transfer their weight and
any additional loads to the outer loading points. Loads are transferred to trench
foundations, with Figure 8 representing three such structures.
A. Structural B. Thin membrane C. Load bearing

Frame structure elements
Figure 8: Images representing working structures to create volumes.
Functional abstraction 2: Create a series of internal volumes
The creation of internal volumes can be considered in terms of the division of the
large volume into smaller compartments, or the accumulation of small volumes into
a larger form. This informs how the solution is approached.
Structural walls are able to carry loads and provide rigidity to the building if integral
to the structure. Acting as part of the whole structure, load bearing capacity of the
structural elements in the shell can be reduced.
67
Light weight partitions can support their own weight and act as dividers; but do not
provide any structural strength to the larger structure. They may be fixed in place
by securing them to the floor, ceiling or wall panels. As they are not structural,
there is a limit to their size. Figure 9 represents three such structures.
A. Stacked B. Infill C. Non structural

volumes internal walls
Figure 9: Images representing working structures for the creation of volumes.
Functional abstraction 3: Stable internal thermal environment
Internal temperature is determined by the balance of heat losses and gains. Central
heating, solar, metabolic and equipment gains contribute heat to the house. Losses
occur by air change with the outside, and by fabric heat loss.
Limiting air changes is achieved by creating a continuous air barrier. Insulation

requires materials with low thermal conductivity.
Thermal mass can slow the rate of heating up and cooling by absorbing and
releasing heat based on the temperature gradient. Thermal mass can be created by
using materials with large heat capacity. Figure 10 illustrates 3 such structures.
68
Results Ruth Sutton
A. Thermal mass B. Insulation C. Airtight barrier
Figure 10: Images representing working structures for internal thermal environment.
4.3.2 Design conflicts: Building
The working structures for each functional requirement were combined to create
conceptual solutions in a selection chart, as shown in Table 17. Each of the
combinations were assessed and solutions were disregarded if they were not
feasible.
Table 17: Working structures
Abstractions Working Structure A Working Structure B Working Structure C

Thin membrane
Create large Load bearing (Structural frame Structural frame
1 external volume materials with membrane in with infill materials
tension)
Light weight
Internal elements Smaller volumes
partitions within the
Create series of working with form the larger
2 external structure
internal volumes external structure to volume.
act independently of
achieve stability
it.
Construct large
Insert self supporting
3 Create openings opening using a
structural unit.
structural frame.
High thermal
Stable thermal resistance materials Air tight barrier
4 Thermal mass
environment reduce the rate of
heat loss.
The review identified that structural frame and load bearing solutions have been
widely adopted during the construction of houses. However, no examples of thin
membrane structures used for residential homes were identified. As a very light
weight structure, with no thermal mass and little thermal resistance, the internal
69
temperature control would be difficult with extremes of temperature requiring

additional systems. As such, thin membrane structures have been removed from
the options. A summary of these assessments are shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Feasibility of working structure combinations for building design

Working structure A Working structure B Working structure C Feasible combination
Structural internal X
Thin membrane Thermal mass
walls
Structural internal ✓
Structural frame Thermal mass
walls
Load bearing Structural internal ✓
Thermal mass
materials walls
Thin membrane Light weight partitions Thermal mass X
Structural frame Light weight partitions Thermal mass X
Load bearing Light weight partitions Thermal mass ✓
materials
Volumetric X
Thin membrane Thermal mass
construction
Volumetric ✓
Structural frame Thermal mass
construction
Load bearing Volumetric ✓
Thermal mass
materials construction
Structural internal X
Thin membrane Insulation
walls
Structural internal ✓
Structural frame Insulation
walls
Load bearing Structural internal ✓
Insulation
materials walls
Thin membrane Light weight partitions Insulation X
Structural frame Light weight partitions Insulation ✓
Load bearing Light weight partitions Insulation ✓
materials
Volumetric X
Thin membrane Insulation
construction
Volumetric ✓
Structural frame Insulation
construction
Load bearing Volumetric ✓
Insulation
materials construction
✓ feasible X not feasible
4.3.3 Functional requirements: Building elements
The conceptual design process was repeated for the building elements. The
functional requirements for the panels were considered, presented in
Table 19 and Table 20.
70
Results Ruth Sutton
Table 19: Abstraction of functional requirements for panel /element (Pahl et al. 1988)
Structural unit
Construction supporting the stable thermal and acoustic environment
Cosmetic surfaces
Table 20: Abstraction of panel functional requirements

Abstraction Working structure A Working Structure B Working Structure C
Structure Box frame structure Composite structure Strutural frame
Insulation
Thermal and acoustic Thermal mass
environment
Membrane Continuous plaster barrier
Outer layer is supported Structurally independent outer layer acts as
Aesthetic by panel surface
The creation of large external volume with a series of internal volumes has been
simplified and is described as the panel needs a structural strength. The need to
provide a stable thermal environment remains. The creation of openings has not
been included as this is achieved by other components.
The building envelope and element types were differentiated into external wall,
floor, ceiling, roof and internal wall, each with individual performance
requirements.
All of the panels required structural components. The load bearing capacity was
dependant on the function of the building solution. Solutions identified were a box
structure and a composite structure.
The panels would act as part of the system providing a stable thermal environment.
Elements separating the internal and external environments require insulation to
restrict heat and sound transfer. The passage of sound between areas within the
building must also be restricted. Materials with insulation properties were required.
The position of the panels determined the functional requirements of the surface
facings. External surfaces must provide protection to the core elements. The
surfaces will also need to have positive aesthetic properties; externally these are
determined by the customer with input by planners. Internally, the surface must be
71
visually pleasing. The surface choice will vary depending on the use of the space.
However, here the most frequently used surface material, plaster has been
selected.
Panels which interface between the internal and external environments require
insulation and protective facings.
Thermal performance is not required for the internal panels; however, insulation
from sound is needed. Dependant on the structural solution, the panels may have
different strength requirements.
4.3.4 Design conflicts: Building elements
The function structures for eachof the functional requirements were combined to
create conceptual solutions in a selection chart, as shown inTable 21 Each of the
combinations were assessed for their feasibility, and solutions were disregarded if
they were not feasible, as presented in Table 21.
Table 21: Feasibility of working structure combinations for panel design

Box frame structure Membrane Cladding X
Composite structure Membrane Cladding ✓
Box frame structure Continuous Cladding ✓
Composite structure Phase change material Cladding ✓
Box frame structure Membrane Structurally independent X
layer
Composite structure Membrane Structurally independent X
layer
Box frame structure Phase change material Structurally independent X
layer
Composite structure Phase change material Structurally independent X
layer
4.3.5 Summary
The conceptual design process translated the product specification into possible
product layouts. The solutions identified have the following features:
• The load of the building is supported by an structural frame or by the panels.

Where necessary the internal walls can provide additonal load bearing support.
• The panels incorporate the insulation in their form.
72
Results Ruth Sutton
• Thermal mass if present if provided by plasterboard. If plasterboard is used an

air tight barrier must be included.
• The building has an external cladding layer.
4.4 EMBODIED DESIGN
4.4.1 Introduction
The embodied design stage developed the conceptual design using a variety of
tools. The character of the solution was developed, shaped by manufacturing and
assembly constraints, legal requirements and technical constraints. The following
section describes how the product arrangement was developed through
consideration of the manufacturing and assembly processes.
The design process required the repetition of design methods; a range of options
were considered and the impacts of each decision assessed leading to refined
solutions. The results of the processes are described here as if a linear process, with
outputs of one design process becoming the inputs to the next stage; however, in
reality the process has a cyclic nature.
4.4.2 Size requirements and layout.
The main constraint determining the module size leaving the factory was the ability
to transport the prefabricated units from the factory to site. The size and weight of
units were considered to ensure that they could be transported to site on a
standard trailer. Unless the factory is set up adjacent to site, units must be
transported along the road network. Table 22 details loading limitations of the
transport options. A quick review of the limits indicates that the weight of loads is
not a limitation but that the volume is.
Table 22: Transport constraints
Height total inc. Load

Length /mm Width /mm
vehicle /mm
Standard trailer 12300 2400 2540

Abnormal load rigid length >1865 2900 2540 >44,000 kg
73
Comparison of the building dimensions, shown in Figure 7 with the transport

constraints, in Table 22, indicate that transporting the building as a fully assembled
unit, from the factory to site on a trailer, is not feasible because it is too wide. As
such, the building fabric must be divided into smaller modules.
Addressing panel elements, the dimensions of the full elements are given in Table
23. Single storey wall panels could be transported as single elements; however, the
floor and roof elements were too wide to fit onto a trailer in any orientation. As
such, they had to be divided into smaller modules. By transporting the elements to
site as individual panels, a greater packing density can be achieved. Two designs
were explored.
Table 23: Onsite assembly. Module dimensions

Minimum Maximum
Wall 4200*2400mm 7000 *2400 mm
Floor 7000*4200mm
Upper floor and ceiling 7000*4200
Roof 2177*7000
Internal 2400*2400 4600*2400
Open panels comprised the core structure of the panel, without insulation,
cladding or linings panel, when they left the factory. Transporting the panels
without facings, allow them to be stacked on top of each other, which is the most
space efficient method.
Closed panels were fully assembled in the factory, including cladding and linings. As
they were more fragile, they were transported in a frame, on edge, as if in a toast
rack. Where panels were too long to stand upright on the trailer, they were
transported on their side perpendicular to the design assembly intention.
Both packing arrangements were able to transport the panels, (lining and cladding
materials in the case of open panels) in two trailers. A third trailer was required to
delivered roof trusses from the supplier to site.
Volumetric assembly achieved a lower packing density than the panel arrangements
because of the empty volume within the room modules. As a starting point the
volumes were determined by splitting the building in half, as shown in Figure 11.
This produced two modules of 7.0 x 2.1m. Three of the volume sides were external
74
Results Ruth Sutton
walls and the fourth face had little, if any, support from internal wall elements.
Including roof panels, transport from factory to site required four trailers. Two
modules had long spans (4.6m) without any upright structural support for the
Volumetric assembly
design boundary line
Figure 12:: Volumetric assembly: Equal sized modules: 1
ceiling panel; as such, structural supports to bear loads and provide rigidity during
transportation and assembly would be needed.
A second arrangement considered nine modules of equal size, 4200*2330mm; 3 for

each floor, as shown in Figure 12, the kitchen and bathroom walls were just beyond
2.33m at 2.40m, and could fit the transport width constraint of 2.55m. However,
Volumetric assembly design
boundary line
Figure 11:Volumetric assembly: Equal sized modules: 2
75
the building width is too large to fit three modules, from a single storey, on a single
trailer, meaning that 5 trailers were required, Figure 15.
Using the principles of force transmission and stability (Pahl,Beitz et al. 1988 pg.
213), the final volumetric design was divided into room modules using the internal
and external wall panels as module faces, Figure 13. The building layout indicated
that while 2 rooms were larger than a standard trailer, they each had three load
bearing walls and, as such, they could be engineered to be stable with bracing
during transit. The layout in Figure 15 shows the packing arrangement. In order to
minimise the number of trailers, the delivery of panels would not be in the order of
assembly, and as such modules would be stored on site and require double
2 1 Volumetric assembly
3
design boundary line
4 Numbers show which

trailer the volume
1
1&2 1 travels in
3&4
Figure 13: Volumentric Assembly: Room modules

handling. The number of trailers and the double handling meant that this solution
was disregarded.
Many of the modules for each storey are the same, assisting the clarity and
simplicity of the design. The basic layout assists structural design, structural
elements should be aligned and by having the modules aligned the designs can be
checked by overlaying the designs. If the internal elements were structural then
some internal walls upstairs and downstairs would need to be aligned.
76
Results Ruth Sutton
On this basis, the only volumetric option taken forward was “Volumetric assembly:
Room modules”; both panel methods were also taken forward. A summary of the
transport options is presented in Table 24.
Table 24: Summary of factory to site transport
Typical module Number of trailers Sequential Packaging

dimension assembly?
Length *width
(mm)
Volumetric: 7000*2100 4 No, but double Additional
equal sized handling only structural supports
module 1 necessary for 1
module)
Volumetric: 4200*2300 5 Yes Additional
equal sized (adjusted to 2400 structural supports
module 2 to utilize partition
walls)
Volumetric: Range 4 No Additional racking
Room modules 1000-4600 support
Closed panel Walls 2400*600 2 Yes Protective

(1200/1800/2400) (plus delivery of wrapping
Floor 4200*600 roof trusses to site
(1200/1800/2400) +1)
Open Panel Walls 2400*600 1-2 Yes No
(1200/1800/2400) (plus delivery of
Floor 4200*600 roof trusses +1)
(1200/1800/2400)
4.4.3 Summary of transport design
Adressing the transport of the building between the factory and the site has defined
the transport constraints for the modules. The buiding can not be transported as a
single unit and as such must be divided into module. Three module types were
considered, panel stacked (open), panel toast (closed), equal sized (vol.). The
following summarising the finding for each type:
1) Volumetric design:
a. Transported modules as single storey, including floor and ceiling

panel.
b. Using room shapes to determine modules allowed for greatest

structural stability during transport.
c. Four trailers were required
77
d. Module dimensions 1000-4600mm
2) Open panel design:
a. Core of the panel was transported flat within 3 trailers
b. Panel size up to maximum 4200 length.
3) Closed panel design
a. The panel core with lining and cladding were transported on their
edge.
b. Up to three trailers were required.
c. Panel size up to maximum 4200 mm
Figure 14: Feasible volumetric packing arrangements: Equal sized module 2
78
Results Ruth Sutton
Figure 15: Feasible volumetric packing arrangements: Equal sized module 1 & Room
modules
79
4.4.4 Element design
The functional requirements identified the product needs at the building level. This
level addresses of functional requirements of the elements in the building. Each
element as a unit must meet their own specific set of functional requirements
determined by their position in the building. Each of the functional carriers met
several requirements including structural requirement, thermal and acoustic
performance, and aesthetic requirements as detailed in Table 25. In order to
maitain a modular approach, a similar design was used for the core of each panel
solution. Adaptions then ensured the panel met the functional requirements of the
element, as described in Section 4.3.
Table 25: Functional elements of panel

External Internal Ground Roof Upper
Panel profile Roof Ceiling
wall wall floor gable floor
Aesthetic surface
Internal protective surface ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
/thermal mass
Air gap, and services ✓ ✓ ✓
channel
Air barrier ✓ ✓ ✓
Structural components ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Insulation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Membrane ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Air gap /hygrothermal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
External protective
surface ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Aesthetic surface
4.4.4.1 Materials palette
A material palette was developed based on the functional requirement. Materials

were chosen which were well established in the construction industry. Information
relating to materials that met the requirements of the working structures were
gathered and detailed descriptions are presented in the Appendix D. Table 26
summarises the key design factors.
Structurally timber, laminated timber, steel and concrete are among materials that
provide the structural strength required in the frame. Where a frame is in place,
infill panels may be used for the walls, otherwise panels must be designed to be
load bearing.
80
Results Ruth Sutton
Composite panels use an expanded polystyrene foam core with a rigid material on
the outer surfaces. Concrete, oriented strand board (OSB) and steel are possible
outer materials using sandwich form.
Box panels can be structural or non-structural and are produced using a

combination of structural and non structural components to produce a box shaped
panels. Insulation is inserted into the internal volume of the box, sheathing
materials are used to face the top and bottom of the panel.
Insulation typically comes as highly porous material, such mineral wool, glass wool,
or sheep wool. These are supplied as rolls of material between 400 and 600 mm
wide and are cut to the length required. Thicknesses of the of the insulation are
available as multiples of 25 mm, between 100 – 300 mm. Blown materials, such as
recycled paper and expanded polystyrene (EPS) balls can be installed into contained
volumes. Finally, rigid insulation materials are available as batts, examples are EPS
and dense wool slabs. Thermal mass can be made available through concrete
elements or plasterboard impregnated with phase change materials (PCM).
Vapour barriers control the passage of moisture through it based on temperature,

allowing warm air through, but remaining closed to cold air. There is little variation
between membrane products. In order to be effective membranes must form a
continuous layer, this is achieved by overlapping membrane sheets and taping. Wet
plaster can be used to form a continuous air barrier if carefully detailed. In order to
achieve the continuous air barrier the plaster must be applied on site. Plasterboard
can be used to create an air barrier as long as a continuous ribbon of sealant is used
to fix the board.
Structural Insulated Panels (SIP) are created from a sandwich of two 18 mm OSB
board with an EPS sandwich filling. Manufacture requires gluing and compression of
sandwich to fix.
The EPS can be formed by heating pellet styrene polymers, reducing initial storage
requirements. However, it is reported that manufacture of EPS is only economical
for very large volumes, over 500,000 m3 , which is not feasible in this context. EPS is
available to the factory in their expanded form in sheets up to 1200 mm from
81
builders merchants. Larger custom sizes could be available; however, the glue
machines are restricted to a maximum 1360 mm.
Table 26: Material palette

Function Material Life span Standard sizes Production
Building Structural Custom to order
Glulam Life time Custom to order
frame
Building Structural Custom to order
Steel Life time Custom to order
frame
Building Structural Wet trade,
Concrete Life time Fixed by design molds
frame
Load bearing material I joist Life time Custom to order Custom to order
Structural panel I joist Life time Custom to order Custom to order
internal walls
Oriented strand Table saw
Load bearing material Life time 2400*1200 mm
board
Structural internal Oriented strand Table saw
Life time 2400*1200 mm
walls board
Light weight partition C16 Timber Life time 2400*240 mm Circular saw
Load bearing material Plywood Life time 2400*1200 mm Table saw
Custom Scissors
Insulation Sheep wool Life time
525*240 mm
Insulation Warmcell Life time Custom to order Blown
Custom Scissors
Insulation Mineral wool Life time
525*240 mm
Expanded Table saw
Insulation Life time 2400*1200 mm
polystyrene
Light weight partition Plaster board Maintenance 2400*1200 mm Jig saw
Thermal mass Gypsum plaster Maintenance 2400*1200 mm Wet trade
Plaster board with Jig saw
Thermal mass PCM
Air barrier Gypsum plaster Maintenance 2400*1200 mm Wet trade
Air barrier Membrane Lifetime Scissors
Unit lengths to Saw- onsite
Aesthetic Red cedar Maintenance
nearest metre
Battens Timber Maintenance 2400*44*38 mm Circular saw
4.4.5 Panel arrangements
The panel functional requirements were combined with the material palette to
create the panel solutions. The relative position of the materials affected the
performance of the panel. Two solutions were created and the arrangements for
the wall panels designs are presented in Table 27 and Table 28.
Panel depth varies according to the materials used. SIP panels are the slimmest with
an open panel depth of approximately 150 mm to achieve a wall u-value of
82
Results Ruth Sutton
0.17W/m2K. Timber frame with a sheepwool insulation will have an open panel
depth of ~240 mm to achieve similar.
Table 27: Panel profile: Timber frame
Ceiling (mm)
Floor (mm)
Upper floor
Roof (mm)
Wall (mm)
Roof gable
Timber frame
(mm)
(mm)
Panel profile / Thickness of parts
Plasterboard 12.5 0 0 0 12.5 12.5

Inner Battens (horizontal) 38 0 0 0 0
surface
Battens (vertical) 38 0 0 0 38 38
Membrane 1 0 1 1 0 0
Sheathing board 11 11 11 11 11 11
Insulation 240 240 240 240 240 240

Box
panel
I-joist 240 240 240 240 240 240
Top and bottom boxing 240 240 240 240 240 240
Sheathing board 11 11 11 11 11 0
Vapour membrane 1 1 1 1 0 0
Battens (horizontal) 38 0 38 38 0 0
Outer Battens
surface 38 0 38 38 0 0
(vertical)
Cladding Red cedar 19 (38) 0 19 (38) 19 (38) 0 0
Table 28: Panel profile: Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) (solution 2) Option 2
Ceiling (mm)
Wall (mm)
Floor (mm)
Upper floor
Roof (mm)
Roof gable
SIP
(mm)
(mm)
Panel profile / Thickness of parts
Plasterboard 12.5 0 0 0 12.5 12.5

Inner
surface Battens (horizontal) 38 0 0 0 0 0
Battens (vertical) 38 0 0 0 38 38
Membrane 1 0 1 1 0 0
OSB 18 18 18 18 18 18
Composite
Insulation (EPS) 240 240 240 240 240 240

Panel
OSB 18 18 18 18 18 18
Vapour membrane 1 1 1 1 0 0
Battens (horizontal) 38 0 38 38 0 0
Outer Battens (vertical) 38 0 38 38 0 0

surface Cladding
Red cedar 19 (38) 0 0 19 (38) 19 (38) 0
38)
83
A joist spacing of 600 mm was is the maximum spacing advised by the suppliers.
Based on this spacing, panel sizes were multiples of 600 mm. This also enabled
components size to correspond with standard sizes. While SIP panels do not
necessarily have to conform to the same structural design constraint, machinery
available for gluing panels has a maximum width of 1200 so multiples of 600 mm
have been adopted to simplify comparison between solutions. Furthermore,
standard size of materials used to produce the SIP panels are based on 600 mm.
4.4.6 Sustainability assessment
4.4.6.1 Environmental assessment
An environmental assessment was produced for each whole-bulding design. By

creating a single score for cumalative impact of the building materials, each solution
could be presented. Scores for the elements were aggregated, based on surface
area.
The environmental impact was described using a score out of 10. The higher scores
correlated with low impact elements. Table 29 shows how the ratings used in the
Green Guide were converted to metric scores. Details of Green Guide Ratings which
correlate with the general solutions are given in Appendix D and are summarised in
Table 30 below.
Table 29: Environmental Assessment: Green guide rating conversion to metric score
Green Guide A+ A B C D E F G
Environmental metric 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
Table 30: Environmental Assessment: Elemental Green guide rating

Element Range
Upper floor construction Timber frame A/E
Concrete floor slab E
External wall construction Cladding on timber frame construction A+/ A
Cladding on light steel framed construction A+/ A
Separating floor Steel A/B
Timber A+/A
Internals wall Framed partition A+/A
Proprietary and demountable partitions A+ / D
Roof construction Pitched Roof steel construction A+/ B
Pitched roof timber construction
Pitched Roof SIP construction
84
Results Ruth Sutton
The case study company determined that the building should be able to be
promoted as sustainable building to the public. As such, a design requirement that
individual elements must achieve a Green Guide rating above “B” was determined.
Scores for the elements were combined according to the surface area within the
building. Output scores for the environmental metric had little variation, as shown
in Table 31.
Table 31: Environmental score (surface area) of the panel types

Panel Type Environmental score
Timber panels. 10
SIP panel 10
Structural 6
Non structural 10
All insulation types No change
The environmental assessment has limted scope to inform the designer about the
design space. The use of elements assessment to calculate the score meant that
design improvements are not accounted for. Improvements are achieved by a
reduction in material volumes, waste and energy consumption. Within a solution
type the saving achieved by panel size are reflected in the material inventory and
manufacturing time, as such, the information relating to the environmental impact
within the the design space can be understood.
4.4.6.2 Responsible sourcing
The responsible sourcing metric was based on the material choices and their
suppliers. Each material product was given an individual score based on the social
responsbility of the supply chain. Solutions scores were calculated by aggregating
scores using the weightings in Table 32. Solution scores were in the range 4.85-5.6,
with a mean score of 5.3. The traditional construction score was 5.5.
Table 32: Responsible sourcing: Weighting

Element Weighting
Panel 0.4
Cladding 0.2
Insulation 0.1
Lining 0.2
Structure 0.1
85
Table 33: Responsible sourcing: Scores

Timber panel SIP Red Lining Glulam Steel
cedar structure structure
cladding
3 3 2 2 3 0.5
EPS Warmcel Rockwool Sheepwool
0 2.0 2.5 3.0
4.4.6.3 Health and Safety
No filtering of materials, based on the health and safety assessment was made at
this stage. This metrics focusses on processes which have not ben developed at this
stage in the design.
4.4.6.4 Adaptability
Asessing adaptaboility at this stage. The design flexibility of the proposed solutions
were assessed. The assessment identified that concrete panel method had low
modular design flexibility because changes to panel size or form alteration required
new moulds and additional investment. As such, concrete was considered not
suitable.
4.4.6.5 Cost
As a first level assessment, the initial investment cost for equipment was
considered. The assessment identified that concrete panel required significant
investment in moulds or forms for pouring panels, and that this method had little
adaptability with respect to design. As such, concrete was considered not suitable.
4.4.7 Design for Manufacture: Panel
Design for manufacture and assembly tools methods were developed to improve
the efficiency of manufacture and assembly in the factory, and in the factory setting
the data developed in Boothroyd (1994) can be applied. The panel design was
addressed using the method described in Section 3.5.2.2. Each component was
considered, addressing whether it could be eliminated, reduced or replaced. The
summary of the assessment is presented in Table 34.
86
Results Ruth Sutton
Table 34: Assessment of components

Function Material Replace/ Eliminate/ Minimise
Structure Glulam Adopt a structural design that does not require a

Steel, structural frame.
Concrete Building layout can be designed to optimise structural
Composite efficiency.
Panel (Structural) I joist Ensure spacing is maximized.
Steel
Panel (Structural) Timber Remove components if other parts provide structural

integrity.
Optimise structural efficiency by minimising number
of panel elements.
Panel (Form) Timber The part forms a spacer to separate other
(Top and bottom of components, then design the components to they
panel) replace with a single manufactured component.
removing the need for the additional parts.
Structural racking OSB Plasterboard could offer some structural rigidity.
strength Where a structural frame is used this will provide.
Racking strength to be achieved by using diagonal
bars.
Hold insulation in OSB Rigid insulation may not require boarding. For SIP
place panels for the insulation also forms the structural
component.
Membrane, netting or nails could be used to hold
insulation in place.
Structure Plasterboard Plasterboard comes in a variety of weights, the
minimum weight for the purpose should be used.
Thermal mass Plasterboard PCM plasterboard has good performance and can
reduce the need for less efficient materials.
Insulation Insulation Replacing with alternative material with greater R-

values would reduce required wall thickness.
External protection Cladding External protection: Alternative materials can be

identified; however, a sacrificial material is required.
If the core structure of the panel can maintain its
function over the lifetime of the building then is may
be suitable.
Air tightness Air tightness Use wet plaster to create an airtight seal. Tape board
membrane and tape without using membrane.
Remove difficult arrangements and layouts during
design to maximize performance and minimize
failings.
Addressing the panels, the original design comprised two timber I-joists as upright
structural components; two horizontal timbers were used to create a box frame.
OSB sheeting provided rigidity and created and internal volume that also contained
the insulation. A final surface was formed by a membrane.
Based on the assessment the following design assessments were made
• SIP panel requires fewer parts than timber frame, as shown in Table 35.
87
• Panel size affects the number of I joists required. Materials and material
manufacture can be minimised by maximising the size of the panel. Larger
panels require few I joists. Material saving for using I joists, as shown in Table
36.
• A membrane could be suitable for holding insulation in place reducing the

volume of OSB board required for timber frame.
• Wet plaster could replace membrane to ensure air tight construction.
Table 35: Number of components per building (core panel)

600 1200 1800 2400
Timber Frame 2738 1788 1290 1024
SIP 1542 1016
• Table 36: I-joist material in timber frame panel building
600 1200 1800 2400

Per wall panel /m 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0
Total I joist length in building 960 765 639 540

/m
4.4.8 Machining parts
An inventory of parts for each panel was created. Machining times were then
calculated for the parts. Costs were prepared for each panel and then for the whole
building. Table 26 details the material preparation methods used.
Insulation and membranes were not cut using machinery blades but were cut by
hand. They did not account for any power consumption associated with their
preparation. Prepepared I joists were supplied at the necessary lengths from the
manufacturer.
Timber machining data comprised setup time and cutting time. Cost of materials
and labour and power consumption were calculated for each component based on
the machining data. Parts were cut from standard sized materials. The maximum
number of components were manufactured from a single sheet and the total
cutting time divided among the total number of pieces. Where multiple
components of the same size were required, one machine set up was required for
all of the components of that size in the building.
88
Results Ruth Sutton
Panel sizes were selected which optmised the cutting lengths required. For example
froma OSB board, a single piece 2400 mmx 1200 mm would not require any cutting,
but a 600 mm required one cut of 2400 mm and produced two pieces.
The impact of panel size affected total machining times and cost. Table 37 and Table
38 describes the total material machining times for wall panels in timber frame and
SIP respectively, results for all materials are presented in Appendix F.
Table 37: Machining time in factory: Timber Frame Open Panel

Factory setup
(number of
unique
Panel size components) Set up times Total setup Total time
600 11 612.00 660 386581.72
1200 8 612.00 480 218367.03
1800 15 612.00 900 231785.68
2400 8 612.00 480 256997.72
Table 38: Machining time in factory: SIP panel Open panel

Factory setup Set up times Total setup Total time
(number of
unique
components)
Panel size
600 9 612.00 540 292271.88
1200 7 612.00 420 236577.64
4.4.9 Panel assembly time in the factory
Panel assembly in the factory occur at a workstation. Butterfly tables enable the
minimal handling of heavy partially assembled modules. Assuming that parts could
be organised in a workstation arangement around a central assembly point, time
were calcluated for the assembly of panels using methods described in Boothroyd
(1994)
Panel assembly was calculated in accordance with the description in Section 4.4.4.
Parts typically had at least 180 degrees of symmetry which enables easy and could
be positioned and fixed easily. Assembly and fixings were typically from above,
except for top and bottom box panels which required horizonatl fixing. Panels were
square and the use of a butterfly table would assist maintaining the correct shape.
89
Where lining and cladding were fixed to the panel, this was completed with the
panel in an upright position.
Table 39: Factory assembly times for timber frame panels. Total for building in hours
600 1200 1800 2400
Open 88 49 61 48
Closed 100 64 68 52
Table 40: Factory assembly times for SIP. Total for building in hours
600 1200
Open 1.1 2.5
Closed 0.3 2.2
4.4.10 Volumetric manufacture and assembly in the factory
The design of the volumetric solution divided the building into volumes of different
sizes. This led to a larger number of different sized element units, compared to the
panel assembly method. As such, volumetric assembly required a larger number of
element panels which did not match the standard module sizes (600, 1200, 1800, or
2400 mm) and a larger number of component set-ups, assembly set-ups creating a
greater inventory of parts. Table 41 shows the comparison between panel and
volumetric assembly. Manufacture and assembly times for the panels are presented
in Table 42.
Table 41: Total number of panels

Panel Volumetric
600 187 234

1200 98 128
Table 42: Assembly times for Timber Frame volumetric modules

Set up time Assembly times Assembly time
Machinery Setup (panels) volume
600 17 1020 333247 195806
1200 16 960 244915 106020
A second phase of assembly in factory created volumetric modules. It was assumed

that panel elements were assembled from the components prior to the asembly of
volumetric modules. The larger inventory of panels means that there is greater
handling. This has not been fully reflected in the assembly times because the times
assumed that the modular components are available at the workstation.
90
Results Ruth Sutton
4.4.11 Design for Assembly: Panel assembly on site
Having established the general sizes of panels and volumetric modules as

determined by transport constraints, the assembly of the units on site was
considered. The panel size and the arrangement of materials affect the assembly
methods and the sustainability of the process. Designing for assembly aims to
minimise time of construction and with the additonal sustainable requirement the
heath and safety impact of assembly is considered here.
In the factory, assembly time is minimised by reducing the number of parts and
optimising the form. In the factory, where small components can be arranged close
to the assembler at the workstation, moving components from storage has little
effect and so the number of parts, the ease of positioning and fixing are most
important. Onsite, modules to be assembled are much bigger and must be
manoeuvred by more than one person and often also require lifting equipment.
Frequently, the modules must also be moved to the location of assembly from a
distant position. These factors affect how the design for assembly results present.
Boothroyd (1994) described methods to calculate the time taken to assemble

components in a factory and these were adapted for use on site. Assembly times
were calculated using a combination of literature data and estimated values. The
assembly times for the proposed solutions are presented in Table 40.
Onsite, if elements (wall, floor etc.) are transported as single modules, cranes would
be required to lift them into position. However, if elements were divided into
modules small enough, they could be carried into positions without additional lifting
equipment.
The weight of structural panels are shown in Table 43. Assuming a worker can carry
20-25 kg and an upper limit of 6 workers handling a panel as a team, panel weights
of 120-150 kg can be moved. All open panel types of width 600 mm and 1200 mm
and closed 600 mm can be handled without lifting equipment. Where lifting
equipment is required, the panel size determines the number of lifting points
required and the speed the panel can be moved.
91
Where the volumetric modules were assembled in combination with a structural

frame, only self-loads act on the modules. These units can slot into the frame like
drawers. In contrast, infill panels transfer their load directly to the frame, and
therefore, require structural elements to be present before they are built.
Table 43: Weight of structural panels (kg)

Elements
Closed/
Open Volumetric
Mass per
whole panel Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Handling
600 17.94 73.86 Person 32.02 119.22 Person
1200 29.53 126.30 Person 57.69 217.02 Lifting equipment
1800 41.12 178.74 Lifting equipment 83.37 314.83 Lifting equipment
2400 52.71 231.18 Lifting equipment 109.04 412.63 Crane
Sealing the building to ensure airtightness appears to be most difficult for the
modular solution. While, the assembly of volumetric modules in the factory can be
produce better quality outputs, where finishes are in place, connecting the module
interfaces present challenges. Where plasterboard is designed to be the primary air
barrier in a dwelling, a continuous ribbon of adhesive is required. Similar measures
should be considered when faces are connected. Using a sealant on site has the
lowest economic cost and was adopted in the design. Alternatively, a gasket could
be installed in the factory; however, accurate information for costs was difficult to
obtain and was not pursued further here. Finally, the vapour barrier already
presented could be relied on to ensure airtightness. Tiems to lift and install the
panels are presented in Table 44.
Table 44 : Times taken to assemble panels onsite

Summary Person hours for assembling house on site
Lifting panels into place on site /s Sealing panels Total
600 155.47 156.47 311.93
1200 67.53 68.14 135.68
1800 51.60 52.13 103.73
2400 37.47 37.88 75.35
92
Results Ruth Sutton
The assembly of the building using volumetric units minimised the number of
module moves required on site. Distances moved between storage location and
building can be larger, and have been assumed to be 15000 mm, greater than the
7000mm assumed for the panel assembly. The position of lifting points must to be
carefully designed by engineers for each module; here the number of points was
assumed based on the weight of the module. As for the panels, crane speeds were
adjusted to account for the weight of the modules. Assembly time presented
includes time for assembly of volumes in the factory.
Table 45 shows the assemby times for the different panel sizes. The shortest onsite
assembly time was for the volumetric assembly. This is in part because much of the
assembly would be completed in the factory. Of the panel designs, the smallest, 600
mm panel was the fastest assembled onsite because it could be positioned without
lifting equipment. The adoption of larger panels meant fewer moves, and as such
for the panels which required crane movements, assembly times fell with increased
panel size.
Table 45 Sumarry of assembly time (Panel positioning and sealing )

Module Handling Total Assembly No of persons Construction time
time /hours /days
600 Two person 64.29 4 3.10
1200 Crane 186.61 2 + crane operator 6.16
Volumetric Crane 8.63 2 + crane operator
(Baed on 600mm (+39.9) (assembly in
panel) factory
The impact of assembly times on the environment are considered to be small and
not discussed here. Material choices are not imapcted by onsite assembly so
responsible sourcing metric is not affected.
The cost implications of onsite assembly are related to the hiring of the crane which
has a day rate. The times presented in Table 45 described the total time, for all of
the activities, and do not account for work to be completed concurrently. Cost of
the crane are included the each solution dependant on the panel size.
93
The positioning of panels and modules on site was considered the most hazardous
activitity. The movement of large objects across site requires careful management.
With 600 mm panels the risk is low. Handling of panels can be controlled and the
severity is lower than for large panels.
4.4.12.1 Design for manufacture: On site
Manufacturing decisions affected by the activities on site were panel size, and
choice of cladding materials. Transport of the panels, affecting panel and module
sizes has been discussed above. The preparation of cladding is discussed here.
Cladding and lining materials provide a protective covering to the core sturctural
materials and provide the aesthetic surface. Building fabric can achieve a long life,
as long as the external surfaces protect the internal materials. To achieve this, the
external facing and internal linings were treated as sacrificial and allowed to have a
shorter lifetime than the building. Recognising that materials will need to be
replaced, the design should enable maintenance. Where materials are removed and
replaced, damage to remaining parts should be minimised.
Cladding systems considered were determined by the functional requirements

described in Section 3.5.1. Red cedar was selected for cladding, which could be
assembled in the or onsite. Red cedar was provided as timber pieces 5000 mm long.
Materials were cut to length and could be assembled in the factory or onsite. If
assembled in the factory, the cladding panel was more delicate than the core panel
module, and transport to site was in a “toast rack” method, on end.
Figure 16: Cladding layout using overlapping pieces
The cladding layout used over lapping pieces, as shown in Figure 1616. The
minimum overlap to prevent water ingress was 13 mm. In order to enable assembly
94
Results Ruth Sutton
units that matched panel sizes a range of overlaps were calculated. Table 46 shows
the results. 19 mm overlap was chosen as the requiring the least material but
allowing for the most simple assembly.
Table 46: Overlap options for red cedar cladding

Option 1 Option 2 Option3 Option 4 Option 5
Board width 94 94 94 94 94
Gap (y) 56 60 65 67 70
Overlap (x) 19 17 14.5 13.5 12
Overlap test Pass Pass Pass Pass False
Repeating unit 150 154 159 161 164
Manufacture of parts in the factory was assumed butonly the two conditions.
assembly in the factory and asembly onsite were considered. Assembly in the
factory was designed to be completed as part of the panel assembly and on site a
connecting piece to ensure continuity would be fitted. On site assembly would
require assembly in situ. This would require scaffolding to enable safe handling of
materials.
Assembly times were calculated for onsite and factory assembly. Additional
assembly time resulting from onsite assembly was estimated based on expected
fixing times and movement of materials from the working area to the building. On
site data, similar to Boothroyd (1994) is not available and as suvch time have been
increased by 50% to reflect the additional effort.
4.4.12.2 Summary
The embodied design process has explored the design space through the
application of design tools. Taking conceptual designs, design for manufacture and
assembly was used to develop the construction process. The tools have created
design information, in the form of component inventory, and time and cost data as
well as sustainability information. The information will be used in the next section
to assess the whole life sustainability of the solutions.
The design process has produced solutions which meet the functional and
sustainable requirements. Through the embodied design process the design space
95
has been explored and the solutions have been refined. Based on the information
gathered the following design conditions are considered to be the most favourable.
• SIP is the most efficient method because of the efficiency of parts. The low
number of parts meant that maching and assembly times were reduced
compare to the timber frame alternative.
• The selection of SIP means that the insulation parameter was fixed.
• Volumetric construction has shown the benefits of reduced assembly time

onsite.
4.5 TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION METHOD
The traditional construction method in the United Kingdom is a brick house with a
tiled roof. The outer leaf of the building has an insulated cavity wall. The roof has a
trussed construction and is covered with a vapour membrane and tiles. Internal
walls are a mixture of structural and non-structural elements. The ground floor is
built over a hardcore layer; insulation and a damp proof membrane (DPM) are
covered with a concrete floor slab. Upper floors are built using timber joists; where
spans are greater than the length of the available joists, additional beams may be
used to provide extra support. The following sections described the materials and
construction process in greater detail.
4.5.1 Materials
Materials were chosen to meet the requirements of the element construction and
are described in Table 48.
96
Results Ruth Sutton
Table 47: Design options and recommnendations

Conceputal Transport Materials Design for
manufacture
(factory)
Building Panel Thermal Aesthetic
Structural Box frame Air tight Cladding Open Timber Smaller
structure membrane frame panels do
materials not require a
defined crane to
Insulation complete
options assembly
Non- Composite Phase Lining Closed SIP panels
structural structure change defined
materials Insulation
:EPS
Continuous Volumetric Cladding
plaster Module options
size based
on rooms
Table 47… continued
Machining Assembly Assembly Adaptability Health and

(factory) (factory) (onsite) Safety
Preference for SIP panel Larger panels Independent Smaller panels
1200 and 2400 structure
Larger panels Insulation Smaller panel SIP panels
installation in
the factory
Insulation Structural
installation in frame
the factory
97
Table 48: Material selection for traditional construction

Element Material
Ground floor Hardcore: aggregate
Insulation: Mineral wool
DPM
Concrete floor slab/ Screed
External wall External brick work: clay brick
Mortar (ready mix: sand and cement)
Void
Wall ties
Insulation: Mineral wool
Internal block (pg. 173) : Aerated concrete brick
Plaster: Wet plaster
Internal upper floor Gypsum skim
Gypsum base board
Timber joist
Beam
Struts
Insulation 100 mm
21mm softwood floor boarding /chipboard
Roof Rafters and trusses
Insulation
Roof felt
Battens
Plain tiles (burned clay)
Ridge tiles
Internal wall (structural) Internal block (pg. 173)
Plaster
Internal wall Clay block

(non-structural) Wet plaster
4.5.2 Construction process
This section describes the construction process used in the research.
Ground conditions vary significantly across the country. Foundation depth for a
house is usually about 1.2 m. Soil conditions in each location must be investigated
and foundation and service routes should be designed accordingly. The
development of brownfield sites requires increased caution. The construction
process outlined here, starts at the point that the building is raised above ground
level. As such, preparation of foundation and services have not been included.
The ground floor is built onto a hardcore layer, onto which a insulation layer is
installed. A DPM prevents moisture wicking into the fabric of the building. The DPM
98
Results Ruth Sutton
is continuous from the floor level, over the internal block work and external brick
work.
Building up from the prepared ground level, and assuming strip foundations, the
double skin of concrete block and brick are constructed by bricklayers. Insulation is
fixed, flush to the inner layer as the wall progresses. The leaves are attached to
each other using wall ties.
Structural internal walls are constructed at the same rate as the external walls.
The first floor is constructed when the external walls reach the suitable height, this
provides a platform for the safe construction of the walls to the first floor.
Joists and beams for the first floor and the upper ceiling are installed using joist
hangers.
A wall plate is installed along the external wall of the building. When construction is
managed solely on site, ridge board, rafters and trusses will all be prepared and
assembled. Pre-fabricated trussed rafters are very widely across the housing
construction industry. As such their usehas been assumed here.
Once assembled roofing felt is used to enclose the roof space. Battens are
constructed, running horizontally along the length of the wall, onto which tiles are
fixed. Tiles are fitted with an overlapping patter. Special tiles are required at the
edges and the ridge of the roof. The lining is a wet plaster.
Windows and doors are installed, making the building water tight. The first fix
installs the plumbing and electrical fitting which are then encapsulated within the
fabric by the lining. The second fix completes the building by installing fitting such
as switches, sockets, and surface finishes.These stages are not included.
4.5.4 Environment
The building element were review using the Green Guide and the elements all had
ratings A+. Details are presented in Appendix D. As such, the traditional building
method has an environmental score of 10.
99
4.5.5 Cost
Cost for the traditional construction was calculated using an estimating guide.
Disposal of waste at the end of life was clauleted based on the volume of materials.
Unit areas for each of the elements were calculated and used to estimate costs for
the build. The whole life time cost was £24,030.
4.5.6 Health and Safety
A risk assessment was undertaken for the construction processs. The original metric
addressed the the construction in phases, and addressed the onsite and factory
work separately. Traditional construction does not have a LCA phase in the factory
factory. As such, the building construction was considered in terms of the work
required to assessmbl the building elements, as shown in Table 49.
Table 49: Risk Assesment for traditional construction
First
External End of
Ground floor/ Internal Mainten-
wall Roof life
floor upper finishes ance
Internal
ceiling
wall
Traditional Con. * L- Con. * L- Con. * L- Con. * L- Con. * L- Con. * L- Con. * L-
construction Hood Hood Hood Hood Hood Hood Hood
Handling 4 1 6 6 4 6 2
6 4
Risk of falling 6 2 6 9 1
Exposure to 1
4 4 2 4 4 1
toxic materials
Exposure to the 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
elements
Risk of Injury 4
2 1 1 12 1 4
(by equipment )
4.5.7 Adaptability
The adaptability of the traditonal design and construction was considered using the
methods described in Section 3.6.3.3. The results are presented in Appendix H.
100
Results Ruth Sutton
4.6 SUSTAINABILITY SCORE
The design process enabled much information and understanding to be created

about the design space. Individual metric scores indicated how each solution
performed with respect to a sustainability issue and enabled patterns to be to
identified. Table 47 summarises the design recommendations developed from the
SCDP.
In order to understand how the conflicting design requirements balanced a single

sustainability score was calculated by aggregating the metric scores. Metric scores
were calculated and aggregated to give a sustainability score for each of solutions.
In order to reflect the relative importance of environmental, social and economic
factors, agreed with the business, weightings were applied. It was considered that
environmental and social impacts had equal importance to economic factors.
Environmental issues were predetermined by industry experts to give the weighting
used within the Green Print assessment. Responsible sourcing, adaptability and
health and safety metrics all contributed towards the total social impact. Their
weightings were adjusted to give equal contribution to the social impact. The
weightings applied to the criteria scores are described in Table 51.
4.6.1 Sustainability metrics
Each of the sustainability issues identified were scored by the application of a

sustainability metric. The metrics scores values reflected the method and as such
had different ranges to each other. In order to ensure that the magnitude of these
scores did not scew the total score, the metric scores were normalised. The
following section describes the sustainability metric results.
4.6.2 Cost
This metric most closely resembles the life cycle assessment method. The cost
metric required the most detailed data collection of the selected metrics. Table 50
summarises the cost included at each stage
Table 50: Costs included at each stage of the lifecycle
101
Stage
Raw materials Material cost based on volumes Costs of materials were collected
Waste assumed to be 10% added to from material supllier. Materials
material were priced either for
compomponent, or for system if
appropriate.
Factory manufacture Cost of labour based on time Labour cost from SPONS
Cost of power based on time Power cost based on industry xxx
Transport from factory to site Based on total number of journey Cost per journey was obtained from
required to transport modules from local company.
factory to site.
Assembly Equipment cost based on panel Crane cost obtained from local
weight company
Labour cost based on time Labour cost from SPON
Maintenance Material cost based on lifetime of Lifetime based on product data or
materials industry accepted values
End of life Waste disposal determined by Industry averages for the disposal
industry averages. routes were used.
Costs provided by local company
The first stage of the assessment required the preparation of an inventory of all
parts for each solution.
• The cost of each component was calculated, including material cost, plus an
additonal cost for waste materials.
• Manuacturing cost which includes the power used for cutting the materials and
labour for the manufacturing process.
• Time for assembly was calculated and a cost for the labour of assembly in the
factory was included.
• Cost of transport, based on the number of trailer journeys to transport panels or

modules was included.
• On site, the cost of assembly comprising labour and labour related to craning
panels and modules.
• Materials required for manitenance was calculated using the service life of the
msterials. The cost of maintenance materials was included but no manfacturing
or labour costs were included.
• At the end of life, demolition costs were not included, but costs for waste
disposal were included.
The results of the whole lifetime are presented in Appendix .I.
102
Results Ruth Sutton
The total lifetime costs were between £25,703 and £39,937. The average cost is
£29,519. SIP panels solutions have lower costs, with an average cost of £24,496. The
average cost of a timber panels solution is £30,455.
4.6.3 Social assessment
4.6.3.1 Health and safety
The health and safety metric was based on manufacture and assesmbly processes.
The construction processes during each stage of the construction lifetime are
reviewed, the hazard events are identifed and the risk is assessed. The risk score
was calculated as the product of potential consequence and likelihood of the event.
Each design solution was assessed for risk. Detailed risk assessments are shown in
Appendix H.
Health and safety metric scores were between 7.41 and 8.13 with an average score
of 7.66. The solution scores show little pattern reflecting the wide range of
processes required in each construction. Within the assessment process specific
design properties were identified as being influencial. The following activities were
associated with reduced risk:
• Manufacture and assembly in the factory has lower risk than onsite.
• Smaller panels are considered to have lower risk because the likelihood of
accidents during moving panels and assembly is reduced.
• In contrast larger panels, and volumetric modules reduce the number of

movements and as such the likelihood of accidents is reduced.
• The construction of a structural frame reduces the risk, because it removes the
need temporary support during assembly.
4.6.3.2 Adaptability
The adaptability of the design was assessed against a number of requirements

identified in the literature (Gosling et al. 2013, Gu et al. 2004, Schmidt,Robert, I.,II,
Austin 2016). The adaptability of the design in the design phase, in-use and at the
103
end of life was considered. For each phase marks were scored with higher marks
being correlated with greater adaptability.
Adaptability of a building is affected by many different factors which have

complicated interactions. A simple comparative assessment method was used
enabling the whole solution to be considered as a whole and the scores are
presented in Appendix H.
4.6.4 Normalisation and weightings
The range of metric scores, before normalisation, for each of the parameters are
described below. Each of the metric scores were plotted in order from low to high
to understand the distribution of the score.
The environmental metric score were created by produced a weighted sum, of the
element scores taken from the Green Guide Rating. At conceptual design stage the
elelement were retricted to well performing elements. As such, there was little
variation between the environmental scores. The final scores for the environmental
metric were either 9.2 or 10.
The cost metric was the sum of financial cost of the materials and activities across
several phases of the building lifetime. Material and waste disposal cost, machining
power cost, transport and labour all contributed towards the total cost. The
solutions developed had cost scores that showed a mostly linear distribution
between £17,623 and £47,585. Values at the top and bottom of the range move
away from the trendline slightly; however, a linear relationship was used for
normalisation.
The adaptability score was determined using a design assessment. By considering

the materials and panel arrangements, the adaptability of the building in the design
phase, during use and at the end of life were considered. Component and assembly
properties are critiqued to assess the capacity for design flexibilty, adaptation
during use and resue of components at the end of life. The solutions developed had
adaptability metric scores between 3.1 and 7.2. Most scores lie in a linear
distribution between 5.2 and 7.1; the traditional construction score is an outlier
lying away from the trendline and also has the lowest score.
104
Results Ruth Sutton
The health and safety scores was calculated by summing the risk scores of activites
during each phase of the building life. A list of hazards were considered for each
phases and the associated risk for each was scored out of 9. A maximum total score
of 1080 was reduced to a score out of 10. The design achieved scores between
solutions between 7.41 and 8.13. Most scores lie in a linear distribution. The
maximum value 8.13 is the traditional construction score.
The responsible scourcing metric was scored using credit method. Credits were
gained for environment assurance, chain of custody, and internal business
practices. Solutions had responsible sourcing scores between 4.85 and 5.6. The
scores lie along a linear distribution.
Scores were aggregated using a simple summing method. Each of the metric scores
was decimalised. Weightings were applied to the metric score and
summed.Weightings are presented in Table 51. This sustainability score was then
used to compare solutions.
Table 51: Weightings applied to the criteria scores

Economic Social Environmental
Cost Health and Responsible Adaptability Aggregated
Safety sourcing environmental impacts
0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33
4.6.5 Total Score
The aim of the design process is to create sufficient understanding that the best
performing solutions can be identified. It supported the creation of knowledge and
understanding of the design space.
The design process created a number of feasible solutions developed using design
tools adapted from the engineering design. The solutions were created using
functional and sustainable requirements. In order to assess the success of the
adapted method the sustainability of the designs were measured using a
sustainability index.
In order to assess the success of the design process to develop sustainable design
solutions based on the requirements, it was necessary to compare the total impact
of the solutions on the selected issues. Alongside the assessment of the designs
105
described above, sustainability scores were developed for the feasible design
solution combinations. By creating scores for the full range of feasible solutions the
power of the design process could be more clearly understood.
Total sustainabilty scores were in the range 29.5 and 50 out of a total 60. The
average score was 39.3 as summarised in Table 52.
The total scores indicate that the top performing solutions perform better than the
traditonal construction method. However, the traditional method is found in the
top decile of perfromance, as shown in Table 53. Also notable, all of the top
performing solutions are have large panel sizes.
Table 52: Summary of total scores

Environ- Cost score Adaptability H&S Responsible Sustainbility
mental sourcing score
Minimum 9.2 0.0 3.1 7.4 4.9 29.5
Average 9.5 5.5 6.0 7.7 5.2 39.3
Maximum 10.0 10.0 7.2 8.1 5.6 50.0
Table 53: Summary of top design solutions in the top decile of sustainability scores.
Panel Panel Module Structure Insulation Sustainability

type Size score
Timber 2400 Closed Non-structural Sheep wool 45
Timber 1800 Open Glulam Rockwool 46
Timber 2400 Open Glulam Sheep wool 46
Timber 2400 Volumetric Non-structural Warmcell 46
Timber 1800 Open Glulam Warmcell 47
Timber 1800 Open Non-structural Sheep wool 47
Timber 1800 Open Steel Warmcell 47
Timber 2400 Closed Non-structural Rockwool 47
Timber 2400 Open Steel Warmcell 47
Timber 2400 Open Steel Rockwool 47
Timber 1800 Open Non-structural Rockwool 48
Timber 2400 Closed Non-structural Warmcell 48
Timber 2400 Open Glulam Rockwool 48
Timber 2400 Open Glulam Warmcell 49
Timber 2400 Open Non-structural Sheep wool 49
106
Results Ruth Sutton
Timber 1800 Open Non-structural Warmcell 50
Timber 2400 Open Non-structural Warmcell 50
Timber 2400 Open Non-structural Rockwool 50
Traditional 46
107
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of the research was to improve the sustainability of housing construction.
In this chapter the results of the research are brought together and the degree to
which they respond to the research aims is described.
This chapter discusses the development of the SCDP. It describes how the new
design tool has responded to the gaps in knowledge, identified in the literature
review. The research aims and the methods applied are then discussed. The
implication of the results with respect to the aims of the research is discussed and
then the findings are expanded to relate their meaning to existing knowledge.
5.2 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH
The research aimed to create a tool to improve the sustainability of housing

construction methods. The urgent demand to increase housing production
represents large impact potential on the environment through resource use and the
release of environmental pollutants. The construction industry must supply the
houses, despite a shortage of suitably skilled workers. It must too respond to the
need to improve the performance of the houses.
Construction is a large industry, of which housing development is a small part. It has

been subject to fluctuating demand and pressure to increase productivity within a
system where profit is produced by increasing value through developing land value
rather than the transformation of construction materials. In part, this has led to
housing being developed by a fewer, large developers who subcontract the building
activities to smaller companies. As such, value added, and potential profit available
for these activities have been reduced. Smaller profit margins have led to a redution
in investment in the labour force creating insecure employment conditions and
reduced training budgets.
At the same time as the industry is squeezed financially, the need for sustainable
development is reaffirmed. The literature review described the need to address
108
Discussion Ruth Sutton
social and environmental issues. The construction industry has been repeatedly
challenged to improve both the quality of the building and their productivity, and it
was proposed that mechanical engineering methods would lead to the desired
improvements.
Within in this context small construction firms have the oppurtunity to offer better
quality housing with improved sustainability. This research addressed the needs of
the housing construction sector by delivering a sustainable construction design
process, which improves social and environmental performance of the construction
process while recognising the economic constraints of the sector.
The literature review showed that lean methods and prefabrication have been used
within the construction industry for several decades. However, the research uses
large manufacturing works, such as the car industry, for comparison and the
construction industry projects are often large in scale. This research, focusing on the
application to small scale businesses, shows how benefits can be achieved using the
principles for low volume housing.
Literature addressing the design and construction methods of both traditional and
prefabricated was reviewed. A comparison between the car industry and
construction showed that many aspects of the production can be compared. More
importantly, the design processes were shown to offer approaches to construction
issues which traditional methods struggle to tackle.
A variety of tools are available to the industry to support the development of

sustainable housing. The literature review highlighted that tools often addressed
sustainability, focussing on the whole development site, not the building. While
tools such as BREEAM, encourages the implementation of sustainable design into
the design process, it is designed to support larger projects, and requires much
resource. By integrating sustainability into the design process, benefits are
integrated into the decision making process and increases the likelihood of
adoption. On this basis a new the need for a new tool was established.
109
5.3 THE SCDP
5.3.1 Sustainability
The literature review identified that sustainability metrics are poorly addressed in
construction design tools particularly addressing social issues. The literature review
identified issues affecting the stakeholders of the housing construction industry.
Analysis of the issues placed them into social, economic and environmental
groupings, as such the research adopted the triple bottom line model of sustainable
business practices approach (Elkington 1998).
At the sustainability scoring stage, the indiviudal metrics were attributed to one of
environmental, social or economic impacts so that the scores could be aggregated.
However, the impacts of each criteria were also felt in each of the other criteria.
For example, adaptability was addressed as a social issue; however, the factors
considered could also have environmental and economic effects. Where the
adapatability of the building extends the lifetime of the building so that it is not
replaced, and components are reused, financial and environmental benefits are also
achieved.
Similar benefits across the the triple bottom line can be described for health and
safety. In the UK, the economic cost of illness due to accidents at work is
approximately £1 billion (Wright 2015).
This contribution of the factors to triple bottom line criteria meant that creating
weighting factors which were developed by placing the factors in competition with
each other was problematic.
Equal weightings were given to the triple bottom line criteria. This was to reflect
that each were equally important. Consideration was given to creatings weighting
by the business owner, but in the first instance he felt he did not have the expertise
to prioritise environmental issues; then when the scoial and economic factors were
discussed it was difficult to constrain the discussion to weighting of impacts within
the scope of the tool. As the business owner, he had decision making power beyond
110
those dealt with here, which meant that he was concerned with a broader scope of
issues than those dealt with in the research.
5.3.2 Product specification and scope of tool
In the traditional design process, functional requirements which are the focus of the
PDS are driven by the in-use phase of the product. However, the whole life
sustainability has a broader scope.The identification of the stakeholder to the
construction and design process, ensured that the wider sustainability issues were
covered.
5.3.3 Metrics
The research has illustrated the complexity of aiming for sustainability. The number
of stakeholders and the variety of impacts mean that considering each criteria
independently becomes time-consuming and is likely to be omitted in the early
stages. Placing sustainability as a functional requirement , requires that the impacts
are identified and incorporated into the design.
The success of the product is determined by the delivery of a product that customer
wants, at a price they are willing to pay. Sustainability is not yet a driving factor for
the customer when buying houses, particulalry elements of sustainability which do
not impact the in-use phase. As such, the cost of the building could be argued to be
the most important criteria to the customer. On the other hand, prefabrication is
not a traditional construction method, and as such, the customer selecting such
product is most likely to be seeking sutainability among the product functions. With
such an interest, the attention to the whole life impact would be a selling point for
the company.
It is assumed that labour employed in the factory have fulltime permanent roles.
This increases the labour costs to the company, but has been adopted so that the
full benefits of prefabricated manufacture and lean processes can be achieved.
The literature review identified issues such as labour blacklisting and labour
exploitation. These are impacted by the product cost. However, where a business is
111
more able to control its costs, it is in a stronger position to address poor business
practices.
The importance of employment to the economic sustainability of the communities

in which the business operates and in which the houses are built has been
discussed. In summary, local employment is that employment undertaken onsite, by
local tradespeople. These tradespeople are not directly employed, and so there is
risk to the company relating to the commitment and the need to ensure a
consistent rate of work. By moving construction offsite, the workers local to the
development do not gain from the development.
Environmental methods of assessment are well established. However the methods

are resource intensive. The research adopted a simplified approach by using a
proxy. The use of Green Print data has the benefit of using recognised industry data.
The adoption of the proxy data with a standard units does not allow for the design
other than material choices to be understood.
Responsible sourcing reflects whether sustainability has been considered by the

material suppliers. Ensuring sustainability is addressed across the supply chain
which ensures whole life sustainability. As such, suppliers should be able to show
that they too have addressed economic, social, and environmental impacts of their
activities. In order to minimise the burden of work to the decision makers, the
metric required the supplier to provide evidence that they had addressed the issues
themselves, through certification.
Materials gained credits, when they were shown to have considered elements of
their supply chain. The use of creditation schemes mean that a thorough
assessment process has been completed, beyond what would be feasible without
the use of proxy assessments. However, again the use a third party data source
meant that the limited scope to compare the impacts.
Where several materials were considered for the same funtion, the best performing
option was selected. This meant that high scores were achieved. However, there is
also the need to ensure that if descisions are made on the basis a particular supplier
112
and product that cheapar products are not chosen as a replacement further along
the the design process.
The use of certification in this way prevents the the selection of “gold star”
performers who can be identified as performing better than other products. Better
performance could be driven by the requirement for additonal certification to be
met. As the industry improves, the list of possible schemes will expand and should
be added as they become available. In contrast, the method can establish a
minimum performance by adopting a set of design parameters which must be met.
In this research, this has been achieved by demanding a minimum environmental
performance, and by the adoption of the best perfoming material when a nube rof
alternatives are available.
The literature review showed that it was considered important to bring assessment
of health and safety earlier into design process in order to achieve benefits. As the
risks are related to activities, the health and safety assessment is not addressed at
conceptual design stage but considered during embodied design.
5.3.4 Metrics Scoring
The metrics were created to be suitable for use by a small company with limited
resources. The criteria metrics addressed issues which could be described by both
qualitative and quantitative properties. In order to develop a single score to
describe sustainability the metrics, assessments needed to be available as a
quantitative value. This has been been achieved by a mixture of methods including
quantitative assessment, scored qualitative assessment, and credit methods. It is
felt that information relating to the design space has been lost during this
translation. The benefits creating a detailed knowledge of the design space is
discussed below.
5.3.5 Design improvements
The SCDP developed and assessed solution for an outline building. The tool created
a variety of ideas which were explored and refined. The solutions were compared to
113
traditional construction. It was shown that prefabricated solutions were able to

compare favourably to the traditional construction method, given the weightings.
The design tools created knowledge about the design space. This enables the
designer to understand aspects of the manufacturing system which would
otherwise have remained unclear. It is suggested that this information is valuable to
the designer even when it it not used.
The design process identified activities which, although too small to capture by the
sustainability metric, created improved conditions for the whole sustainability of
the building. The following actions were identified
• Replacing nails and staples with screws would improve the recoverability of
materials from the building. However, screws are a more expensive connector,
and they take longer to fix leading to increased labour costs. This is capture in
the adaptability of the design
• Within the panel, larger panels used less material for vertical elements.
• Where component sizes correspond with standard sizes delelivered by the

supplier than machining work is minimised.
• Improvements to the adaptability of the building require that the

constructability of the building is respected. Traditional construction methods
adopt destroy-and-rebuild techniques to for adapt buildings. This may involve
knocking down stud and masonry walls, incorporating steel reinforcement
where necessary and then making good. If a prefabricated building was
designed to have some engineering redundancy then changes could be made
without requiring additional materials; however, if no changes were made then
the building will have been over engineered throughout its lifetime.
5.4 DESIGN PROCESS
The tool presented here can not be a standalone solution. In terms of sustainability
it only addresses the manufacture and assembly of the building. As is widely
accepted, the in-use phase of the building represents a significant part of the whole
114
life impact and must be addressed. The in-use energy consumption is not
considered here.
Furthermore, the design tool presented here has only developed the embodied
solution with respect of manufacture and assembly. The product requires additional
input from other specialisms, such as structural engineer in order to refine the
design.
The points at which the sustainability assessment is completed is, to a degree,

arbitrary. The solutions do not represent the completed product but have been
design with the main manufacture and assembly. Once the embodied design is
competed, then detailed design would be undertaken.
Related to when the sustainability assessments are made, choices to remove

solutions from the development process must be made for in order to focus the
design space. Removing solutions from the design process prevents knowledge
coming from further refinement of the design from being contributed to the design.
(Short, Lynch 2004) argued that designs should not be removed from the process
too soon because of the value that the knowledge contrbutes. However, continuing
with the designs beyond when they are viable, as described by the degree to which
they meet the requirements, represents work which may be have limited value.
Pahl and Beitz (1998) recommend that solutions are filtered at each design stage.
The research here reinforces the view that understanding the impact of solutions
must be pursued because design activities provide conflicting sustainability impacts.
All of the design tools must be pursued before decisions are made.
The aim of this research is not to introduce novel materials to the architect’s
palette, rather it is to show that a robust assessment of sustainability of options is
possible. This is achieved by using a range of materials with similar functional
properties but which differ in other ways and comparing their impacts. While the
designer is likely to have a palette of preferred materials with which they are
familiar. It is important that alternative materials fulfilling the functional needs are
also identified to maintain design freedom. However, designers are not, nor should
they be environmental experts, due to the time constraints involved. As such the
design guidelines are useful.
115
The adoption of the modular approach, initially driven by transport constraints, was
appropriate. By adopting a dominant panel width for the building and discrete
inventory of was created. Further research could explore the benefit of greater
modularity using standard panel lengths also.
The volumetric design, that divided the building into several volumes, each with
different sizes, required a relatively large inventory. Within the factory this
increases workload and waste because it is necessary to hold the inventory for
longer, to have double handling of parts and to increase the number of machinery
set-ups.
During the conceptual design phase, the development of functional structures and
working structures enables the designer to explore new types of solutions. It is
during this phase that unconventional solutions should be considered.
Design for manufacturing and assembly methods were initially developed to

minimise cost while ensuring the functional requirements are met. Design for
manufacture and assembly ensures only necessary components are included and,
then addresses their form and manufacture. This was shown to be applicable to
construction. For example the choice between timber frame and SIP affected the
simplicity of the design as SIP requireded fewer component per panel. However, the
use of SIP constrained the size of the panel to 1200 mm. This led to more panels
being handled during the more difficult onsite assembly process.
The application of the tool led to improvements by minimising the number of parts,
simplifying manufacture and assembly by the design of identified design parameters
which to minimise material in the construction process. In addition, the completion
of the design assessment meant that issues relating to adaptability and health and
safety could be exposed. It is noted, again, that the recording and transfer the
issues identified during the design process is required, otherwise while much of the
knowledge has been created the associated impact will not be achieved.
As the design tool will be used again and again to develop optimised manufacture
and assembly solutions, revised weightings can be developed and fed into the next
design. In this case the weightings should be monitored to assess whether they
116
stabilise to give a set of “ideal” weightings which reflect the stakeholders’ needs in
the current design setting.
The research shows the richness of knowledge that can be gained from completing
a systematic design process. Although time consuming, a model can be developed
overtime with feedback from projects. Once complete the database of information
can be configured in a number of ways to elucidate aspects of the building design.
The design process itself enables the team to understand the relationship between
factors. Additional research should be undertaken to tie the design methods to
other design research, such as ensuring creative problem solving methods are used
to produce the best conceptual designs.
5.4.1 Data quality
A lack of case studies moving from research and development through to actual
construction has led to theoretical models indicating potential benefits but few
established projects. Similarly here the results are theoretical and would benefit
from real data.
The quality of the model data for the assessment model was “troubled “by the
uncertainty of the input data and could be improved by using statistical methods to
account for this uncertainty (Hester et al. 2018).
Difficulties predicting waste pathways for an immature market. The potential

benefits rely on wide scale adoption of reuse or the property owners willingness to
recover and reuse materials.
5.5 CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSING CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH
Existing research in the area is in the form of qualitative research, reviewing

designers experience after projects have been completed, or discussing the barriers
to adoption with the industry.
Quatntitative research compared the how design parameters affected outcome,

often cost or material use. It was identified that research broadening the scope of
these comparsions was required. This research addresses this by considering the
117
impacts of several design parameters, across a larger number of sustainability

issues.
It has been noted that construction design decisions often occur late in the design
process. This tools presents a method for construction design decisions to be made
early on. It includes factors that affect contractors, material suppliers and engineers
and as such they should be included in the early stages of the design process.
These actors are required to supply information to the tool early in the process.
Variability, lack of stability in cost, and supply chains challenges the adoption of the
tool. As such, there is a strong argument that there should be greater collaboration
between developers, contractors and the material supply chain.
Designing for modularity is useful where the core functions of a module are similar
but a variety of output forms are needed. The basic functions identified in the
conceptual design phase were fundamental to all buildings and as such modularity
can be adopted across construction. Achieving the benefits of modularity requires
off site manufacturing to mature. The step changes is comparable to that of Ford to
Toyota. The benefits are not achieved by minimising the differences, but by
optimising the similarities. Savings can be achieved by identifying the best panel size
for the design, material choices and the business’ capabilities; however,
construction will always involve uncertainty as each project is different and
assembly on site is subject to factors less controllable than within the factory.
Factories require significant investment and renting of buying the factory space
often requires a long term commitment. The turbulent nature of the construction
industry, with peak and troughs, means that there is significant risk of factories
spending long periods inactive. However, investment could also help support a
more steady supply rate. This would mean that jobs in the industry are more
secure, that companies would be able to plan training.
118
5.5.1 Industry recommendations
5.5.1.1 Supply chain
Support certification of materials and process so that desingers have the

information describing sustainability metrics: responsible sourcing and
environmental assessment. The work is time consuming and expensive which can
be prohibitive to small businesses.
Suppliers can support developers through collaboration. Developing product

solutions as well as maintaining the sustainability of their products. Machining data
was shown to be minimised when component sizes corresponded with module
sizes. The car industry has a mature supply chain with just in time delivery of
materials to factories. The delivery of material to the factory which do not require
machining before being suitable for assembly also reduces handling as material can
be delivered direct to assembly areas.
5.6 ASSUMPTIONS
For the design process, it is assumed that all assembly occurs by hand because this
allows the fundamentals of design to be applied before any automation brings
additional benefits.
Set-up times assumed that all identical components are prepared as part of a single
batch. Set up times were then divided among the number of components.
Estimated cutting rates and set up times were provided by the equipment supplier
(Smith 2013). Other estimates included rate of glue spreading for SIPs, and the
setup and pouring times concrete moulds.
When the components were cut from the standard material size, but had different
sizes, it was assumed that the machine set up happened twice.
The model used a sustainability framework which accepted degree of damage to

the systems. McDonough and Braungart (2010) argued that minimising damage
wasn’t enough and in his sustainability paradigm, the model as it stands is not
applicable. However, sustainable functional requirements used could be replaced
119
with social, economic and environmental goals: improved biodiversity, nutrient

enrichment, jobs created and lives saved.
Prefabricated construction should be seen as an opening. Companies setting up off-

site manufacture, for the first time, must commit financial capital to factory space,
machinery and a skilled work force. Investing in the design of the building, and more
importantly the associated production process could arguably be considered more
important.
The research shows that optimal sustainable design properties are determined by
the effect of the life cycle of construction activities: machining, assembly,
disassembly and disposal. Conceptual design formulates the “what”, creating the
basis for a building that works, embodied design devises the production,
maintenance and end of life processes that ensure the “how” is achieved efficiently.
This research has shown that wider issues affecting construction sustainability can
be correlated with production efficiency.
5.7 LIMITATIONS
From the outset of the research it was recognised that in-use energy consumption is
often the largest contrbuter to green house gas emissions throughout the lifetime
of a house. As such, this tool can not be used on its own to design sustainable
building. It should be part of a suite of tools which are used as part of the design
process. The tool however, does assist the designer to consider the construction
process, in a manner which has not been addressed elsewhere and as such it
considered a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable construction.
Building performance during the in-use phase is affected by many factors beyond
the fabric materials and layout. The arrangement and form of buildings with the
same floor area can vary significantly, and the impact on the on the thermal
coefficient will be large. The occupant behaviour has been shown to affect the
energy consumption in the use phase. Houses often have long lifetimes and can be
owned by a number of different householders, or the same householders will have
different occupancy patterns across their life phases (working, retired, part time,
parents).
120
Irrespective of building size, the aim of the research was to identify methods or
guidance which will improve all housing designs. If the building does not function
well, is built poorly, or cannot be adapted for changes in people’s circumstances,
the building will not achieve its expected life time.
A systematic design approach was applied to a building layout and was shown to be
effective. Design solutions formulated were original and feasible and a manufacture
and assembly process could be developed, in detail, from the tools available.
121
Conclusions Ruth Sutton
6 CONCLUSIONS
It is becoming increasingly clear that there must be a change from the status quo of
construction activities to deal with their environmental and social impacts. At the
same time, the demand for the industry to increase the output of housing risks the
production of housing with low whole life sustainability that will be in-use for the
next 60 years. Tools to support the sustainability of the construction to
sustainability independantly of other construction issues, leading to sustainability
acting in conflict with other design decisions. Integrating sustainability into a tool
which designs the construction process enables sustainability to be placed at the
centre of decision making.
A review of the sustainability issues affecting highlighted that while environmental

issues were addressed within the exisitng tools, social issues were less well
represented. Issues relating to the supply chain of construction materials were not
represented in the tools. However, they have received attention and organisations
have created methods for suppliers to document and have their supply chains
certified. The downside of certification is that they only enable a binary assessment,
which may be misleading. It is recommended that certifiers provide more nuanced
methods of describing the degree to which their aims are delivered. The Green Print
rating system offers a simple but effective model for such a system.
The tool was valuable for the creation of knowledge relating to the design space.
The focus of the tool on manufacture, enabled highlighted the improved
sustainability performance that can be achieved by strengthening the relationship
between material suppliers and the manufacturers. The car industry have
sophisticated supply chains driven by use of lean methods to reduce many types of
waste. The supply of materials that meet the size requirements of the
manufacturers can minimise machining, reduce handling and stock inventory, which
leads to reduced material waste.
Where a company is creating a range of buildings through the use of modular

design, the creation of a database can reduce the amount of design required by
removing the need for reworking. A commitment by the company to to gather
123
accurate data to replace the data developed from Boothroyd, and the generic data
used in this work would develop the design tool presented here and provide a tool
which can contribute to the management of workflow through a factory and on site,
enabling lean design to be used. Material data from suppliers, assembling and
machining times from the workstation and on site, and more detailed design
information from structural engineers would improve the validity of the results
presented here.
The results of the tool indicated that the design with open timber framed panels,
using the largest panel size (2400 mm), without a structural frame is the most
sustainable construction method. The research suggested that the cost of adoption
is not prohibitive. As such, prefabricated construcion methods can epresent a
sustainable alternative to traditional construction methods. However, the current
economic landscape means that any company setting up prefabricated construction
is at risk in the long term as the volatility of the housing market means that they
may be left with capital assets which are not productive during economic
downturns. Changes to the house building market which result in lower risk to
innovative methods should be considered by the authorities. Market forecasts
indicate that the long term need for new build housing is high, as such, maintaining
a steady supply flow would support the sustainable improvements that adoption of
the SCDP method could achieve.
124
References Ruth Sutton
7 REFERENCES
Akadiri, P.O. and Olomolaiye, P.O., (2012)Development of sustainable assessment

criteria for building materials selection. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 19(6), pp. 666-687.
Akadiri, P.O., Chinyio, E.A. and Olomolaiye, P.O., (2012)Design of A Sustainable

Building: A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Sustainability in the Building
Sector. Buildings, (2), pp. 126.
Anastas, P.T. and Zimmerman, J.B., (2003)Peer Reviewed: Design Through the 12
Principles of Green Engineering. Environmental science & technology, 37(5), pp.
94A-101A.
ANDERSON, J. and SHIERS, D., 2009. Green guide to specification. Wiley-Blackwell.
ANTHONY, H., 1945. Houses: permanence and prefabrication by Hugh Anthony.

London: Pleiades Books, 1945.
Appleton, E. and Garside, J., (2000)A team-based design for assembly methodology.
Assembly Automation, 20(2), pp. 162-170.
Aschehoug, S.H. and Boks, C., (2013)Towards a framework for sustainability

information in product development. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 6(2), pp. 94-108.
Banihashemi, S., Tabadkani, A. and Hosseini, M.R., (2018)Integration of parametric

design into modular coordination: A construction waste reduction workflow.
Automation in Construction, 88, pp. 1-12.
Barratt Developments PLC, (2013)Sustainabilty Report 2013: Creating Tomorrow's

Communities.
Barrett, J. and Wiedmann, T., (2007)A Comparative Carbon Footprint Analysis of On-
Site Construction and an Off-Site Manufactured House. Research report 07-04,.
125
Basiago, A.D., (1995)Methods of defining 'sustainability'. Sustainable Development,

3(3), pp. 109-119.
BAUMANN, H. and TILLMAN, A., 2004. The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. An
orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. External
organization,.
Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A., (2002)Mapping the green product
development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 10, pp. 409-425.
Bell, M., Wingfield, J., Miles-Shenton, D. and Seavers, J., (2010)Low carbon housing:
lessons from Elm Tree Mews. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK, .
Berardi, U., (2012)Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating

systems and rated buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), pp. 411-424.
Berardi, U., (2011)Beyond Sustainability Assessment Systems: Upgrading Topics by

Enlarging The Scale of Assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Building
Technology and Urban Development, 2(4), pp. 276-282.
Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A., (2006)Benefit evaluation for off-site
production in construction. Construction Management & Economics, 24(2), pp. 121-
130.
Boothroyd, G., (1994)Product design for manufacture and assembly. Computer-

Aided Design, 26(7), pp. 505-520.
British Standard, (2011)Framework for the assessment of the sustainable use of

materials. BS 8905UK.
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, 2013-last update, Greenprint-Enabling

Sustainable Communities. Available: http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1290
[06/15, 2013].
126
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, (2009)BeAware: Supply Chain Resource

Efficiency Sector Report: Modern Methods of Construction (MMC). TSB BRE.
Building Research Establishment, (2008)Global Methodology for Environmental

Profiles of Contruction Products. SD6050Watford, UK.
Building Research Establishment, (1987)Dorlonco steel framed houses. Report 110.
Chardon, S., Brangeon, B., Bozonnet, E. and Inard, C., (2016)Construction cost and
energy performance of single family houses: From integrated design to automated
optimization. Automation in Construction, 70, pp. 1-13.
Clarke, L. and Wall, C., (2000)Craft versus industry: the division of labour in
European housing construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(6),
pp. 689-698.
Cockbain, E. and Brayley-Morris, H., (2018)Human trafficking and labour

exploitation in the casual construction industry: An analysis of three major
investigations in the UK involving Irish Traveller offending groups. Policing (Oxford),
12(2), pp. 129-149.
Coronado Mondragon, A.E. and Lyons, A.C., (2008)Investigating the implications of

extending synchronized sequencing in automotive supply chains: the case of
suppliers in the European automotive sector. International Journal of Production
Research, 46(11), pp. 2867-2888.
Crutzen, P.J., (2002)Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), pp. 23-23.
Cuéllar-Franca, R.M. and Azapagic, A., (2012)Environmental impacts of the UK

residential sector: Life cycle assessment of houses. Building and Environment, 54(0),
pp. 86-99.
DAVIES, C., 2005. The prefabricated home. Reaktion books.
127
DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, 2017. Live Table

241 <br />: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure, United Kingdom, historical
calendar year series. House building: new build dwellings statistics. : Latest update
23/02/2017 edn. ONS, .
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2010)Code for Sustainable

Homes: Technical Guidance. London.
Edmondson, A.C. and McManus, S.E., (2007)Methodological Fit in Management

Field Research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4),.
Egan, J., (1998)Rethinking Construction, Construction Task Force Report for

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Elkington, J., (1998)Accounting for the Triple Bottom Line. Measuring Business
Excellence, 2(3), pp. 18.
Ernawati, D., Pujawan, I.N., Batan, I.M.L. and Anityasari, M., (2015)Evaluating
alternatives of product design: A multi criteria group decision making approach.
International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 20(3), pp. 271-288.
Essa, R. and Fortune, C., (2008)Pre-construction evaluation practices of sustainable

housing projects in the UK. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 15(6), pp. 514-526.
Fard, M.M., Terouhid, S.A., Kibert, C.J. and Hakim, H., (2017)Safety concerns related
to modular/prefabricated building construction. International Journal of Injury
Control & Safety Promotion, 24(1), pp. 10-23.
FELLOWS, R. and LIU, A., 2015. Research Methods for Construction. Chichester,
West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Gann, D.M., (1996)Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and

differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan.
Construction Management & Economics, 14(5), pp. 437-450.
128
GERRING, J., 2007. Case study research : principles and practices. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gerth, R., Boqvist, A., Bjelkemyr, M. and Lindberg, B., (2013)Design for construction:
utilizing production experiences in development. Construction Management &
Economics, 31(2), pp. 135.
GIBB, A.G.F. and ISACK, F., (2003)Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client

expectations and drivers. France: E. & F.N. SPON.
Gosling, J., Sassi, P., Naim, M. and Lark, R., (2013)Adaptable buildings: A systems
approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 7(0), pp. 44-51.
Grosskurth, J. and Rotmans, J., (2005)The scene model: getting a grip on sustainable
development in policy making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1),
pp. 135-151.
Gu, P., Hashemian, M. and Nee, A., (2004)Adaptable design. CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology, 53(2), pp. 539-557.
Harder, M.K., Piggot, G., Jimenez, A., Svatava Janoušková, Hoover, E., Velasco, I.,
Burford, G. and Podger, D., (2013)Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable
Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators. Sustainability,
Vol 5, Iss 7, Pp 3035-3059 (2013), (7), pp. 3035.
Hardin, G., (1968)The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), pp. 1243-1248.
Hasan, A., Baroudi, B., Elmualim, A. and Rameezdeen, R., (2018)Factors affecting
construction productivity: a 30 year systematic review. Engineering Construction &
Architectural Management, 25(7), pp. 916-937.
HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE, 2017-last update, Examples of bad, poor and good
external health and safety advice. Available:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/examples.htm [17/11/2017, 2017].
129
Hester, J., Miller, T.R., Gregory, J. and Kirchain, R., (2018)Actionable insights with
less data: guiding early building design decisions with streamlined probabilistic life
cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(10), pp.
1903-1915.
HONG, J., SHEN, G.Q., MAO, C., LI, Z. and LI, K., (2016)Life-cycle energy analysis of
prefabricated building components: an input–output-based hybrid model.
HOOK, M. and STEHN, L., 2005. Connecting lean construction to prefabrication

complexity in Swedish volume element housing, 13th International Group for Lean
Construction Conference, IGLC 13, July 19, 2005 - July 21, 2005 2005, The
International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 317-325.
House of Commons Library (UK), (2018)Tackling the under-supply of housing in

England. 07671London.
Howarth, G. and Hadfield, M., (2006)A sustainable product design model. Materials
& Design, 27(10), pp. 1128-1133.
IKEA, (2013)IKEA Group Sustainability Report FY12.

Nonehttp://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/about_ikea/read_our_material/index.html.
International Organization for Standardization, (2015)Quality Management. ISO

9001.
Islam, H., Jollands, M. and Setunge, S., (2015)Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost
implication of residential buildings—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 42, pp. 129-140.
JAHAN, A. and EDWARDS, K.L., 2013. Chapter 3 - Multi-criteria Decision-Making for

Materials Selection. In: A. JAHAN and K.L. EDWARDS, eds, Multi-criteria Decision
Analysis for Supporting the Selection of Engineering Materials in Product Design.
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 31-41.
130
Jin, R., Gao, S., Cheshmehzangi, A. and Aboagye-Nimo, E., (2018)A holistic review of
off-site construction literature published between 2008 and 2018. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 202, pp. 1202-1219.
Jonsson, H. and Rudberg, M., (2014)Classification of production systems for

industrialized building: a production strategy perspective. Construction
Management and Economics, (1), pp. 53.
Kaebernick, H., Kara, S. and Sun, M., (2003)Sustainable product development and
manufacturing by considering environmental requirements. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 19(6), pp. 461-468.
Kirchner, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M., (2017)Conceptualizing the circular economy:
An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, pp. 221-
232.
KOSKELA, L., (2003)Is structural change the primary solution to the problems of
construction? .
Koskela, L., (1992)Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction.

Technical Report #72Stanford University.
KUBBA, S., 2012. Handbook of green building design and construction [electronic
book] : LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes / Sam Kubba, PhD, LEED AP. Waltham, MA
: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012], c2012.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C. and van Erck, R.P.G., (2005)Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), pp. 373-385.
Lagerstedt, J. and Luttropp, C., (2006)Guidelines in ecodesign: A case study from

railway industry. Innovation in Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development,
, pp. 245-254.
Latham, S.M., (1994)Constructing the team. UK.
131
Lee, W.L., (2013)A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental

assessment schemes. Energy and Buildings, 62(0), pp. 403-413.
Li, C.Z., Zhong, R.Y., Xue, F., Xu, G., Chen, K., Huang, G.G. and Shen, G.Q.,
(2017)Integrating RFID and BIM technologies for mitigating risks and improving
schedule performance of prefabricated house construction. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 165, pp. 1048-1062.
Lovell, H. and Smith, S.J., (2010)< i> Agencement in housing markets: The case of the
UK construction industry. Geoforum, 41(3), pp. 457-468.
Lovins, A., Bendewald, M., Kinsley, M., Bony, L., Hutchinson, H. and Pradhan, A.,
(2010)Factor ten engineering design principles.
Luttropp, C. and Karlsson, R., (2001)The conflict of contradictory environmental

targets. Proceedings Second International Symposium on Environmentally
Conscious Design & Inverse Manufacturing, , pp. 43.
Luttropp, C. and Lagerstedt, J., (2006)EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic
advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 14(15-16), pp. 1396-1408.
MCCUTCHEON, R., 1974. Limits to growth. Manchester: SISCON, 1974.
MCDONOUGH, W. and BRAUNGART, M., 2010. Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way
we make things. North point press.
Meehan, J. and Bride, D., (2015)A field-level examination of the adoption of

sustainable procurement in the social housing sector. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 35(7), pp. 982--1004.
Missimer, M., Author, Robèrt, K., Author, Broman, G., Author, Sverdrup, H., Author
and Blekinge, T.H., (2010)Exploring the possibility of a systematic and generic
approach to social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, , pp. 1107.
132
Monahan, J. and Powell, J.C., (2011)An embodied carbon and energy analysis of
modern methods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle
assessment framework. Energy and Buildings, 43(1), pp. 179-188.
Moultrie, J. and Maier, A.M., (2014)A simplified approach to design for assembly.
Journal of Engineering Design, 25(1-3), pp. 44-63.
Nadim, W. and Goulding, J.S., (2010)Offsite production in the UK: the way forward?
A UK construction industry perspective. Construction Innovation: Information,
Process, Management, 10(2), pp. 181-202.
Naoum, S.G., (2016)Factors influencing labor productivity on construction sites : A

state-of-the-art literature review and a survey. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 65(3), pp. 401-421.
OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, (2012)Construction Tables. London: ONS.
OHNO, T., 1988. Workplace management. Cambridge (Mass.): Productivity Press,.
PAHL, G., BEITZ, W. and WALLACE, K., 1988. Engineering Design: a systematic
approach. London: Design Council, 1988; 2nd rev. ed.
Pan, W., Dainty, A., and Gibb, A., (2012)Establishing and Weighting Decision Criteria
for Building System Selection in Housing Construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 2012 138:11, 1239-1250, 138(11), pp. 1239--1250.
Pan, W. and Sidwell, R., (2011)Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction
in the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 29(11), pp. 1081-1099.
Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J., (2012)Strategies for Integrating the Use of
Off-Site Production Technologies in House Building. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, 138(11), pp. 1331-1340.
Persimmon, (2013)Sustainability Report 2012 (online). On line Accessed

01/03/2014.
133
PUGH, S., 1991. Total design : integrated methods for successful product
engineering. Wokingham : Addison-Wesley ; 1991.
PYPER, D., 2017-last update, Commons Briefing papers SN06819: Trade Unions-
Blacklisting. Available:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06819
[20/10/2017, 2017].
RADOSAVLJEVIC, M. and BENNETT, J., 2012. Construction Management Strategies: A

theory of construction management. John Wiley & Sons.
Rahman, M.M., (2013)Barriers of Implementing Modern Methods of Construction.

Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(1),.
Robèrt, K.-., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi de Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R.,
Price Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P. and Wackernagel, M., (2002)Strategic
sustainable development — selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 10(3), pp. 197-214.
Ross, K., (2002)Non-Traditional Housing in the UK- A brief review. Watford.
Said, H.M., Chalasani, T. and Logan, S., (2017)Exterior prefabricated panelized walls
platform optimization. Automation in Construction, 76, pp. 1-13.
Sarhan, S. and Fox, A., (2013)Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK

construction industry. The Built & Human Environment Review, 6(1), pp. 1-17.
SCHMIDT,ROBERT, I.,II and AUSTIN, S.A., 2016. Adaptable architecture. [electronic

book] : theory and practice. London : Routledge, 2016.
Science and Technology Select Comittee, (2018)Off-site manufacture and

Construction: Building for Change. HL Paper 169UK.
Sfakianaki, E., (2018)Critical success factors for sustainable construction: a literature

review. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, .
134
Shewchuk, J.P. and Guo, C., (2012)Panel Stacking, Panel Sequencing, and Stack
Locating in Residential Construction: Lean Approach. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, 138(9), pp. 1006-1016.
SHORT, T. and LYNCH, C., 2004. Beyond the eco-functional matrix-Design for
sustainability and the Durham methodology, Proceeding of Design and Manufacture
for Sustainable Development conference 2004 2004, pp. 175-184.
Short, T., (2008)Sustainable engineering: confusion and consumers. International

Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(1), pp. 21-31.
Short, T., Lee-Mortimer, A., Luttropp, C. and Johansson, G., (2012)Manufacturing,

sustainability, ecodesign and risk: lessons learned from a study of Swedish and
English companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37(0), pp. 342-352.
Silvestre, J.D., de Brito, J. and Pinheiro, M.D., (2014)Environmental impacts and

benefits of the end-of-life of building materials – calculation rules, results and
contribution to a “cradle to cradle” life cycle. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66(0),
pp. 37-45.
SMITH, M., Email: To Ruth Sutton. 24/07/2013. Correspondance edn.
SMITH, R.E., 2011. Prefab architecture: A guide to modular design and construction.
Wiley.
SMITH, R.E., 2010. Prefab architecture : a guide to modular design and construction.
Hoboken, N.J. : John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
Sobotka, A. and Rolak, Z., (2009)Multi-attribute analysis for the eco-energetic

assessment of the building life cycle. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, (4), pp. 593-611.
Sparksman, G., Groak, S., Gibb, A. and Neale, R., (1999)Standardisation and pre-
assembly: Adding value to construction projects. CIRIA Report, 176.
135
Steinhardt, D.A. and Manley, K., (2016)Adoption of prefabricated housing–the role

of country context. Sustainable Cities and Society, 22, pp. 126-135.
THE LUSTRON CORPORATION, (1950)Advertising Factsheet.
The Royal Academy of Engineers, (2003)Common Methodologies for Risk

Assessment and Management. -London.
Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Nunen, J. and Wassenhove, L., (1995)Strategic Issues in
Product Recovery Management. California Management Review, 37(2),.
TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E., 2000. Multi-criteria decision making methods : a comparative

study. Dordrecht ; Kluwer Academic Publishers , 2000.
UNITED KINGDOM, (1998)Human Rights Act.
UNITED KINGDOM, (1995)Environment Act. United Kingdon.
Van Voorhis, S., (2018)UK Parliament Report Slams Bosses, Auditors, Regulators.
ENR: Engineering News-Record, , pp. 13-13.
Vandermerwe, S. and Oliff, M.D., (1991)Corporate challenges for an age of

reconsumption. Columbia Journal of World Business, 26(3), pp. 6-25.
Villoria Sáez, P., del Río Merino, M., Porras-Amores, C. and San-Antonio González,
A., (2014)Assessing the accumulation of construction waste generation during
residential building construction works. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 93,
pp. 67-74.
Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M., Eriksson, O. and Westerberg, U., (2013)Framework

for Detailed Comparison of Building Environmental Assessment Tools. Buildings,
3(1), pp. 39-60.
Walton, J. and Emmanuel, R., (2010)A fairer place? A prototype framework for
assessing the environmental equity implications of proposed urban developments in
136
the UK. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban

Sustainability, 3(3), pp. 215-230.
Wesz, J.G.B., Formoso, C.T. and Tzortzopoulos, P., (2018)Planning and controlling
design in engineered-to-order prefabricated building systems. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 25(2), pp. 134-152.
Wingfield, J., Bell, M., Miles-Shenton, D., South, T. and Lowe, R., (2008)Lessons from
Stamford Brook: understanding the gap between designed and real performance.
WOMACK, J. and JONES, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. New York :
Rawson Associates.
World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987)Our common future.

A/42/427.
Wright, S., (2015)Health and safety in construction sector in Great Britain, 2014/15.
London.
YIN, R.K., 2009. Case study research : design and methods. 4th ed. edn. Sage
Publications.
Yung, P., Lam, K.C. and Yu, C., (2013)An audit of life cycle energy analyses of
buildings. Habitat International, 39(0), pp. 43-54.
137
Appendices Ruth Sutton
8 APPENDICES
139
A METRICS
141
A.1 ENVIRONMENTAL METRICS

Climate change kg CO2 eq. (100 yr)
Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq.
Ecotoxicity to land kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) eq.
Eutrophication kg phosphate (PO4) eq.
Acidification kg sulfur dioxide (SO2) eq.
Photochemical ozone creation (summer smog): kg ethene (C2H4) eq.
Photochemical ozone creation (summer smog): kg ethene (C2H4) eq.
Human toxicity kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) eq.
Ecotoxicity to water kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB)eq.
Fossil fuel depletion tonnes of oil equivalent (toe)
Waste disposal tonnes solid waste
Water extraction m3 water extracted
Mineral resource extraction tonnes of minerals extracted
Nuclear waste mm3

high level waste
A.1.1 Embodied energy materials / Energy consumption /Climate change
Climate change was been chosen because it included aspects of both energy
consumption and the embodied energy of materials.
Life cycle assessment of the building, will be undertaken including resource

extraction, manufacture and assembly of building, maintenance and disposal of the
building at end of life. The boundary of LCA is discussed further elsewhere.
A.1.2 Toxicity
Impacts to air and water have been combined in the ratings tables. Characterisation
factors, expressed as Human Toxicity Potentials (HTP), are calculated using USES-
LCA, as with Ecotoxicity, which describes fate, exposure and effects of toxic
substances for an infinite time horizon. For each toxic substance HTPs are expressed
using the reference unit, kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) equivalent.
Human toxicity: kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) eq. *
The BRE indicate that indoor air quality is not covered by this category.
142
A.1.3 Acid rain potential and Ozone depletion
Acid rain and ozone depletion are both significant environmental problems. Ozone
depletion compounds are found in refrigerants, solvents and propellants. Acid rain
is produced by the solution of sulphur dioxide and nitrous gases in rain water
producing acid conditions. These will be measured using the LCA methods
A.1.4 Land footprint / resource scarcity
While some materials are highly effective and have low embodied carbon, they may
be scarce, or also be required for other industries, this is represented resource
scarcity. The requirement of sustainable development to enable future generations
to meet their own means requires today’s society to maintain a stock of a resource
so that it is not diminished beyond recovery.
In the sustainable construction, the use of straw bales can be considered. At

present straw is a by-product of grain production. It is used in several ways, as soil
conditioner, bedding and more recently as insulation in construction. If straw was
all diverted to use as insulation then the other use would have to find alternatives.
This could lead greater environmental impacts over the extended system. How is
the competition for the resource measured?
A.1.5 Waste: minimise recycle reuse
The impact of minimising waste will be measured in the LCA and so is not addressed
separately.
A.1.6 Water on site
Water is used in traditional construction, to produce cement and concrete and to

control dust on site. While it is expected that little water will be used within the
prefabricated construction, including a measure of water will allow the comparison
with traditional building methods to be made.
Green guide to specification offered a reliable, trustable and (for the business)
transparent tool, reducing the scale of modelling required.
143
A.2 ECONOMIC METRICS
A.2.1 Cost
A.3 SOCIAL METRICS
A.3.1 Responsible sourcing
Accreditation Max Environmental Social Performance Links

credit
Forest Stewardship 2 Resource Employee https://www.fsc

Council (FSC) management conditions, Local -
Environmental peoples uk.org/preview.f
impact Legal sc-principles-
(pollution) compliance and-criteria-for-
forest-
stewardship-fsc-
std-01-001-
version-5-2.a-
860.pdf
ems14001: 2004 1 Identifies, https://www.iso
Environment monitors and .org/iso-14001-
management makes efforts to environmental-
system control the management.ht
environmental ml
impacts related
to its activities.
PEFC 3 Resource Legislation https://www.pef
Programme for the management Chain of custody c.org/
Enforcement of Carbon impact Workers rights https://www.pef
Forestry c.org/resources/
Certification technical-
documentation/
Also endorse pefc-
Sustainable forestry international-
initiative standards-
2010/2641-
sustainable-
forest-
management-
pefc-st-1003-
2018
https://www.sfi
program.org/pef
c/
BES6001 2 Environmental Workers rights http://www.gre

accreditation impacts are enbooklive.com/
The Framework measured, and filelibrary/respo
Standard for accounted. nsible_sourcing/
Responsible No control BES-6001--Issue-
Sourcing measures or 3.1.pdf
interventions
are required
CARES Sustainable Environmental Quality https://www.uk
Constructional management management cares.com/down
loads/general/C
144
Steel (SCS) Scheme ARES_Sustainabi

(for reinforced lity_Information
concrete) _Leaflet.pdf
ETI Members https://www.go
(Ethical Trading commit to a v.uk/guidance/e
initiative) code of practice thical-trading-
which protects initiative-eti
workers.
https://www.et
hicaltrade.org/
OHSAS18001 To create safe., https://www.bsi

Occupational healthy working group.com/en-
Health and Safety conditions for GB/ohsas-
the employees. 18001-
occupational-
health-and-
safety/
BBA Certification to https://www.bb
Product approval show that a acerts.co.uk/pac
and certification product is fit for
its stated
purpose.
Certification is
achieved
following
laboratory and
field assessment
of the product,
and quality
control
assessment of
the
manufacturing
process
ISO 9001 Quality
management
145
ISO19001 Identifies, https://asq.org/

Quality monitors and quality-
management makes efforts to resources/iso-
system control the 9001
environmental
impacts related
to its activities
GRI The GRI offers a framework and https://www.glo

Global Reporting methodology for the reporting of balreporting.org
initiative social, environmental and economic /
impacts.
A.3.2 Health and Safety
The construction is split into four key phases based on Hazard events are considered and the product of
when a risk assessment would be completed and the severity of accident and the likelihood of an
actions taken. incident is recorded.
A: Manufacture of parts in factory • Exposure to the elements
& B: Assembly of parts in factory; • Exposure to toxic materials
C: Preparation of parts on site & • Risk of injury (equipment)
& D: Assembly of parts on site; • Multiple activities in a small area
E: Maintenance; • Handling
F: End of life. • Risk of falling
The severity of the identified accidents are scored Likelihood is determined

according to the level of notification to the HSE
1) Remote/ unlikely
required.
2) Possible: could occur some time ,
1) Recordable incident (>3days incapacitated );
3) Probably: not surprised will occur several
2) Reportable incident (7 days of work)
time
3) Death of a person
4) Likely: occur repeatedly/event only to be
expected
146
A.3.3 Adaptability
The adaptability of buildings is particularly important, as a unique selling points

(USP) promoted by Dwelle. Furthermore, improved adaptability and ease of
maintenance will maximise the buildings lifetime.
There is a push for homes to be designed so that householders can remain in the
home throughout their lifetime. This means that they should be able to extend the
house to accommodate more people, or to remove them as the household shrinks.
Room use should be changeable.
It is difficult to fully assess the impact over time because it is difficult to predict the
life span of the building (Berardi 2013). Often buildings outlive their design life,
through adaptation and refurbishment (Brand 1995). Extending the lifetime of the
product reduces the need for replacement (Gosling, Sassi et al. 2013). An adaptable
building is able to achieve this with “minimal waste production and material use”
(Gosling, Sassi et al. 2013).
Buildings may be adapted to suit changing fashions, changing lifestyles such

including growing families or reduced mobility (Gosling, Sassi et al. 2013). Changing
climate drives the current Green Deal Initiative which looks to adapt existing UK
housing stock to reduce the energy consumption and to improve resilience to the
possible increased risk of overheating and long cold snaps (Semenov 2007). Given
the projected climate over the next 60 years, it is vital that they either have the
capacity to moderate these extreme conditions, or are to be adapted to do so in the
future.
This adaptability is beneficial for the customer. Adaptable design can also be
beneficial for the business, interchangeability of modules also the product range to
be extended with less development time and lower costs (Gu, Hashemian et al.
2004)
147
B PRODUCT DESIGN
B.1 PRODUCT DESIGN SPECIFICATION
149
14/09/23 Competition best (SI 5/10) This design(intent)

Thermal Performance Passiv Haus Equal to or better than existing performance. Thermal performance at
A/V ratio ≤ 0.7m²/ m³ minimum must be significantly better than building regulations. (element values
Typical values shown – walls, floors and roofs ≤ 0.15 table A)
W/m²K Better than building regulation. U-value=0.15W/m2
Glazing should have been independently certified by
the Passiv haus institute as suitable. A standard
glazing unit (1.24 x 1.48m) should have a whole
window UW value of ≤ 0.80 W/m²K and achieve U
value ≤ 0.85 W/m²K once installed. Solar transmittance
(g-values ≥ 0.5). psi (Ψ) value of ≤ 0.01 W/mK
The resultant air leakage at 50 Pascals pressure must
be no greater than 0.6 air changes per hour (0.6 ac/h
@50 Pa).
It is a requirement for Passiv haus certification that
temperatures exceeding 25°C cannot occur in a
building for more than 10% of the occupied year.
The primary energy demand for heating, ventilation,
hot water and domestic electricity is limited to 120
kWh/(m²a).
As a guide, current construction prices for the PH15, 3
bed, 97 m² completed core shell with materials to
complete the build from £98, 500.
None Structural
Must meet worse case conditions for UK (not including extreme exposure
location)
(description)
Moisture: building must be breathable as per building regulations. Meet
building regulations
No risk to occupants
Environment It is a requirement for Passiv haus certification that Building should function in the UK climate (temperate). Internal temperature
During in-use phase temperatures exceeding 25°C cannot occur in a should be maintained within a narrow range.
building for more than 10% of the occupied year. Building is designed for residential use. Any internal moisture generated must
The resultant air leakage at 50 Pascals pressure must be removed. Moisture created by occupants, bathroom, kitchen.
be no greater than 0.6 air changes per hour (0.6 ac/h Live loads, no high loads expected
150
Appendix Ruth Sutton

@50 Pa). Adaptability, changes to structure.
During construction Components/elements should be robust enough to survive transportable.

phase Either all parts to be positioned without specialist equipment, or all parts to be
positioned using equipment.
Components can be assembled (onsite) in poor weather conditions.
Components should be to be stored outside for short lengths of time.
Life in service 60years 60 years (for mortgage)
Maintenance Surface materials will have a lower life time than the internal structure, which is
protected by outer layers. These outer layers will require maintenance and
replacement.
Building systems will be replaced within lifetime of the build.
It is assumed that values given in the literature are representative of when a
typical householder would undertake the work. It is assumed that by
undertaking the work all other components maintain protection.
Heating systems and electric appliances are not considered as part of the
design; however, the “infrastructure to the systems i.e. the pipes and wires etc.
are included.
Materials should be able to withstand wetting/ drying cycles.
Target product cost £1200/m2 approx. refers only to the build cost and not the life time cost.
Competition Passiv Haus is considered represents comparable level
design quality and thermal performance.
Other competitors include: Huf Haus, IKEA Boklok.
Other building methods considered suitable for high
specification building include thin joint masonry, SIPS
Shipping Mainly UK based
European freight should be considered
Packing (not included This may require removable handles or slings to be Wrapped for transport to site. May be stored on site.
here.) attached during manufacture, which are then removed Design should allow component to be easily handled manually or by equipment
once assembled. While the time spent awaiting assembly onsite will be minimised, it should be
expected that the materials could be exposed to the elements for some time.
Quantity Approximately 52 buildings from the factory each year.
151

Manufacturing facility Wikihouse Design based on freedom to design manufacturing method.
However, costs must be reasonable for a start-up. Maintain a simple, flexible
manufacturing facility.
Size Not for comparison A number of building sizes will be available in the range.
The design is created by architect who determines sizes of spaces based on the
internal furniture and desired layout.
Other factors may include
Constraints of transporting the panels may them lead to slight adjustment to
the dimensions.
Weight Modcell transport the timber frame as flat pack, then There are weight constraints related to transport.
using a flying factory close to site, they build the closed Lorries have weight limits of XXXX
panels minimising the transport
On site the weight of elements should reflect the proposed handling method. If
a crane then large weights can be carried. If manual handling is prescribed then
all elements should be able to be handled safely.
Aesthetics, appearance Prefabricated panels minimise the amount of onsite Should be high quality and suggest sustainability?
and finish. tasks that are required. Confirmed by Building
Material properties Large range in best materials, depends on function. Must meet building standards. Values for off-gassing, fire resistance and xxx
Typical targets include minimize volume of material, Must be ethically sourced
minimize weight. Aesthetic value and
Materials must widely available across the industry. Components materials,
such as timber, glulam, oriented strand board (OSB) and plywood, and
insulation products should be available from builder’s merchants at standard
sizes.
Must be sourced in a responsible manner with respect to the environment,

society and economy.
Product Life span NHBC offer building warrantee for 10years. It is anticipated that the design of the building will change to offer a degree of
Housing lifetime is approximately 60year bespoke design.
Standards and N/A Building regulations Approved documents A-Z
152
Appendix Ruth Sutton

specifications Lifetime Homes
Ergonomics For assembly enabling part to be easily handled is important, for health and
safety.
Customer Unknown Unknown
Quality and reliability NHBC offer building warrantee for 10years. NHBC offer building warrantee for 10years.
Shelf life (storage ) N/A N/A
Processes N/A N/A
Timescales Maximise time in factory over time spent on site
Promotion indicates approximately 8-10 weeks total time from order to
delivery
Testing Building inspector must sign of the construction. AS- Building inspectors need to sign off the construction
built drawing must confirm actual construction. Air tightness testing. Minimum to meet building regulations, but stricter target
Minimum thermal performance is confirmed by for Passiv Haus.
drawings.
Air change pressuristion test is under taken on selected
building in a development and all unique properties.
Safety In performance In performance
Structural safety
Company constraints The case study company is a start up company, which may lead to issues with
finance terms.
Market constraints Construction demand often reflects recession and boom characteristics. Many
companies go bust during period of recession.
For prefabrication businesses there is a long term commitment for rent and
equipment. As such a continuous flow of products through the factory is
required.
Manufacturing components for future demand is difficult because buildings are
large products, and components and elements have low value/volume ratio..
Patents literature and Patents are not necessary but should be considered for any innovation.
product data If the building is going to have longest lifetime feasible, then as built drawings
should be available for future disassembly or adaptation.
Political and social Housing is a vital part of community’s geographical structure. It has value
implications beyond its functional utility.
153

Legal Building inspectors
Installation Transported for factory to site on the back of lorries (how many?)
Assembled using xx people and a crane.
Assembly of the shell took xx hours. It then took approximately xx weeks to
complete
Fast assembly in the factory and little assembly required on site.
Minimise the time the building is not water tight.
Documentation BIM management systems Not completed
Some drawings available. Full documentation of designs, options manufacture
and construction method should be achieved.
Occupant handbook should be available with clear sections for the occupier,
tradespersons
154
155
Cost Affordability is important for large Minimise cost per unit floor area
scale infiltration of the market. of building
However, the total price of a property
is significantly affected by land cost.
Employment Create skilled, well paid, secure
employment. Invest in training.
Local employment Modcell have been involved with Create employment where the
community projects, at which houses are built, support the
community stakeholders help insulate local economy.
the panels.
Embodied carbon Earthen structures and timber Minimise the release of
structure can be closed system and greenhouse gases, over the
carbon neutral. lifetime of the building.
Acid rain potential Most of acid rain potential is Minimise the release of gases and
associated with sulphur from fossil fuel particulates which contribute to
combustion. acid rain potential.
Ozone potential It is feasible to select materials that Minimise the release of chloro-
have zero ozone potential for fluoro-carbons.
construction.
Resource Use Renewable material >36%. Renewable materials, minimising
Factory timber waste 8% (lower when waste through design
reuse and recycling included) (WRAP). Use materials which aren’t scarce
At Stuart Milne 80% of this waste is To minimise timber waste in
recycled or reused. factory and continue to minimise
through lean methods.
Toxicity “Natural” homes use only materials Minimise
with no known toxicity to people
Water Minimise use onsite and in the
factory.
Minimise embodied water in
materials
Adaptable Portal frame methods allow the
internal building to be rearranged with
little damage to the fabric. Office
buildings often have movable sections,
and flooring.
Impact during Construction on site impacts the
construction (off local community through noise
Sustainable Design Requirements
site construction) and dust produced on site.

Vehicle movements to and from
site from the delivery of vehicles
cause issues.
Secondly, off site assembly,
improves the quality of the
building and a better building
with fewer defects is produced.
Health and Safety It is a legal requirement for the
company and the entire workforce to
take on duty of care.
Responsible All materials will be traceable
sourcing from cradle to grave. All
employment practices, political
associations, decision making will
be completed ethically and with
due regards to people and planet
156
Conceptual design Pahl and Beitz (1988)
Functional Environmental
Provide natural daylight /Allow privacy Moderate internal temperature
Secure Control air movement (prevent draughts)
Offer space as desired Remove pollutants (smells, moisture etc. )
Have separate compartment spaces as needed Control humidity
Deliver electricity and water from outside to inside the home Prevent moisture ingress
Remove waste water from the home Prevent ingress of external noise
Provide sufficient daylight
B.1.1 Existing product summary
Today, companies offering offsite solutions have a variety of backgrounds. Most are
from construction, such as, Archihaus which is formed as a partnership between
Architects and developers (Archihaus 2013). Redrow is a housing developer. Toyota
is a large multinational, known in the United Kingdom for manufacturing vehicles,
but, among other things, manufactures housing in Japan. However, Legal & General,
a financial services company, announced in mid-2016 that they would build the
world’s largest modular building factory, in Leeds, West Yorkshire, to take
advantage of the government sponsored build-to rent scheme (Legal & General
2017).
The scale of production varies, too. Toyota produces 4000 houses per year across
their three plants in Japan. Legal & General has not announced the scale of output,
but it is likely to be in the thousands (Legal & General 2017). Huf Haus report that
their output is limited to approximately 200 large houses per year. In the long term,
the Archihaus expect their factory will have capacity for 500 houses per year,
supplying the United Kingdom (Archihaus 2013).
The challenge for any business involved in factory production is to manage the
demand such that the supply rate is balanced throughout the year. Archihaus have
planning permission to build the factory and a housing development across the
road, which ensures they have predictable demand as they become established
(Archihaus 2013). Legal and General are using their investors’ money to build to
rent, ensuring a continuous demand (Legal & General 2017). For Huf Haus, they
manage their flow through the factory by limiting the number of houses they build,
stating that they limit this in order maintain customer service.
157
If the prefabricated construction process is considered in terms of onsite and offsite

then developers can be divided into those who undertake the offsite manufacture
and those who use contractors to manufacture the buildings for them. Some
developers, such as Redrow, purchase the panels from timber frame manufacturers
and only manage the onsite construction. Panel system suppliers offer solutions
based on their palette of materials. For example: the Tek Kingspan (Kingspan Group
2010) construction system using structurally insulated panels made of rigid poly-
urethane insulation with oriented strand board (OSB) facing.
The degree of offsite prefabrication can range from just the fabrication of the
structural frame of element panels through to completion of room modules. Where
panels are used, companies manufacture a standard sized panel with small
variations to allow for the building layout. Modcell use a 3.0*3.2m standard panel
which can be handled. An Oxford supplier, Green Unit, has panels that are 2.5*
5.4m sections; they describe the panels . as light enough to be carried by two
people. Kingspan Tex offers panels up to 1.22*7.50m which require installation
using a crane (Kingspan Group 2010).
The prefabricated panels or modules are delivered to site from the factory. Huf
Haus fabricate all the components in Germany, then transport them to site whether
in Germany, in the UK or elsewhere. Unusually, Modcell prepares the components
of the panel frames at their factory in Bath, and deliver them flat packed to a “flying
factory” within 30miles of the development. In the flying factory, the panel frames
are assembled and locally sourced straw bale insulation is installed. Volumetric
module sizes are limited by transport and site access constraints.
Where the process is understood, lean can be achieved. Huf Haus, (in the Grand
Designs programme) arrive on site with a transit van which has exactly enough
fixing for the building and all the tools required. The team is skilled and thorough: at
the end of the job the construction team cleaned the van from top to bottom
before leaving site, a behaviour which is considered unusual in the UK.
158
C MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
C.1 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Stages Fixed data values
Material Environmental impacts from EPD or
Ccalc The assembly of materials
(already cut).
Offsite Waste volume is 10% Time assembled--> Toward
Onsite Waste volume is 20 % time offsite
Where materials are delivered Time assembled… energy
prefabricated waste volume is 0% demand off site …
Manufacture and assembly Environmental impacts based on environmental impacts
Green Guide Rating Cost of employment
Labour cost in the factory is for Cost of energy
general operative £12.12/hr
Transport Determined by panel and

module size
Material Labour cost in the factory is for Glulam and steel are
Manufacture general operative £12.12/hr structural frames. The
Assembly materials will be
Transport prefabricated by supplier.
Material Environmental responsible sourcing,
Manufacture Labour cost in the factory is for
Assembly general operative £12.12/hr
Transport
Connect craning hooks to panel. Number of fixing points to crane
Crane into position. Survey in based on weight of module. Time
position. Fix , seal using , and Taken per connector
unwrap (if necessary) Speed of crane movement
dependant on weight
Assume assembly ng onsite takes 1.5
Assembly parts on site times offsite assembly
Machine parts off site SIPS assembly, including gluing
Disposal of materials Cost supplied by local company Collected from
159
D MATERIALS PALETTE
D.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE
D.2 MATERIALS
D.3 MATERIAL DETAILS
D.3.1 Timber
Timber describes a large range of materials. In the United Kingdom woods used in
construction include spruce and fir, with woods such as oak and sweet chestnut
being used more rarely.
Timber used in the United Kingdom construction industry is often from outside the
United Kingdom. The quality of timber is lower strong enough for use as a structural
material. Methods to make timber materials stronger are used, such as laminated
and ply.
British timber meets European Union Timber Regulations. The EUTR requires
foresters and suppliers to maintain a chain of custody, identifying the type of tree,
country of origin and volume along with other information.
Recycled wood, Plywood
Sustainable certification. PFC
Manufacturing treatment
Red cedar/ Larch (cladding) /OSB
Timber has several sustainable characteristics. If the rate of renewal is less than the
rate at which timber is replaced, if the stock of trees is not carefully managed, then
the timber is not sustainably sourced. It is a renewable resource, which at the end
of its life can often be reused or recycled or incinerated. The Environment Agency
have four grades of waste wood, covering virgin timber, mixed wood, treated wood
suitable for incineration and hazardous wood (contaminated with copper, chrome
of arsenic treatment or creosote).
160
D.3.2 Metals
In construction, metals are used as structural elements, fixing and connectors. They
can also be used as a surface facing. The type and amount of material used is
determined by the required strength, life time and aesthetic considerations.
Metals are finite. They require large amounts of energy to extract from their ores,
and sometimes require toxic chemicals during processing. A market has developed
for the recovery and recycling of metals because the “new” materials are more
expensive to extract than reprocessing used metals. Table below details the impacts
of virgin material and recycled material.
Table 54 Energy impact of metal processing

Metal Iron Steel (structural) Zinc Aluminium
Extraction 25 32.4MJ/Kg 72.44 224.1 MJ/Kg
Chemical
Typical UK 25 30.9 59.8 157.1MJ/Kg
Recycling rate - 59% 30% 33%
Recycling Mostly recycling
17.9
Steel is available in the UK but the material produced is of higher specification than
used for construction. As such, steel specificities could be shipped from China or
other similar. Manufacture of the structural elements would be completed by a
steel fabricator, offsite and it would be delivered to site ready for assembly.
161
D.3.3 External wall elements
1m² of external wall construction, to satisfy current Building Regulations, and a U

value of 0.3 W/m²K. Where relevant, the specification will also include an internal
wall finish.
Element Element Summary rating Kg of CO2eq

Number
1106164003 Cladding on Structurally Insulated Panels A+ 20.0
Canadian cedar cladding, breather membrane, 2 x 15mm OSB
with 112mm rigid urethane insulation, to give 142mm overall
thickness SIP system, plasterboard on battens, paint
1106164004 Cladding on Structurally Insulated Panels A+ 1.7
Pre-treated softwood weatherboarding on timber battens,
breather membrane, 2 x 15mm OSB with 112mm rigid urethane
insulation, to give 142mm overall thickness SIP system,
plasterboard on battens, paint
806210048 Timber Framed Construction A+ 14
Canadian cedar weatherboarding, OSB/3 sheathing, timber
frame with insulation, vapour control layer, plasterboard on
battens, paint
Timber Framed Construction A+ 35.0
806210566 UK produced natural slate on timber battens, breather
membrane, OSB/3 sheathing, timber frame with insulation,
vapour control layer, plasterboard on battens, pain
Timber Framed Construction A+ 17.0
806210057 Canadian cedar weatherboarding, breather membrane,
plywood (temperate EN 636-2) sheathing, timber frame with
insulation, vapour control layer, plasterboard on battens, paint
806210051 Timber Framed Construction A+ -3.2
Pre-treated softwood weatherboarding, breather membrane, E for
OSB/3 sheathing, timber frame with insulation, vapour control photochemical
layer, plasterboard on battens, paint ozone)
A+ 35.0
806210566 Timber Framed Construction
UK produced natural slate on timber battens, breather

membrane, OSB/3 sheathing, timber frame with insulation,
vapour control layer, plasterboard on battens, paint
Light Steel Framed Construction A+ 47
1206490017 UK produced natural slate tiles on timber battens, breather
membrane, OSB/3 sheathing, insulation, light steel frame,
vapour control layer, plasterboard on battens, paint.
1206490026 Light Steel Framed Construction A+ 55
Canadian Cedar boarding on timber battens, breather
membrane, cement-bonded particle board sheathing,
insulation, light steel frame, vapour control layer, plasterboard
on battens, paint.
1206490027 Light Steel Framed Construction A+ 30.0
Canadian cedar boarding on timber battens, breather
membrane, no sheathing, insulation, light steel frame, vapour
control layer, plasterboard on battens, paint
806390025 Concrete Frame with Metal Stud Infill D 350.0
Brick faced non-loadbearing precast concrete sandwich panel,
reinforced concrete frame, light steel studwork, plasterboard,
163
paint
Loadbearing Precast Concrete Systems B 230
806260689 Reconstructed stone faced precast concrete cladding panel,
insulation, light steel studwork, plasterboard, paint
Loadbearing Precast Concrete Systems D 250
806530031 Sandstone faced precast concrete cladding panel, insulation,
light steel studwork, plasterboard, paint
D.3.4 Ground floor construction
Functional unit for solid and suspended ground floors:

1m² ground floor based on a dwelling with a ground floor area of 40m² and exposed
perimeter of 18m to satisfy England & Wales Building Regulations and a U value of
0.22 W/m²K. To include any repair, refurbishment or replacement over the 60-year
study period. DPM must be continuous with the walls.
Element Element Summary Kg of CO2eq

Number rating (60years)
820470033 Suspended Timber A 33.0

Chipboard (P5) decking on timber joists with
insulation, over 100mm 30% PFA oversite concrete
(100% RCA)
820470035 Suspended Timber A 32
Chipboard (P5) decking on timber joists with
insulation, over 100mm 30% PFA oversite concrete
820470076 Suspended Timber A+ 21
OSB/3 decking on timber joists with insulation, over

100mm 30% PFA oversite concrete (100% RCA)
820470078 Suspended Timber A+ 15
OSB/3 decking on timber joists with insulation, over
100mm 50% GGBS oversite concrete (100% RCA)
820470125 Suspended Timber A 24
Plywood (temperate, EN636-2) decking on timber
joists with insulation, over 100mm 50% GGBS oversite
concrete (100% RCA)
Suspended Concrete A 60
820140001 Chipboard (P5) decking on timber battens with
insulation on grouted hollow precast prestressed
concrete planks
820140017 Suspended Concrete C 110.0
Chipboard (P5) decking on timber battens with
insulation on grouted hollow precast reinforced
concrete planks
820144003 Suspended Concrete A 49.0
OSB/3 decking on timber battens on insulation on

grouted hollow precast prestressed concrete planks
820140021 Suspended Concrete C 100.0
OSB/3 decking on timber battens on insulation on
grouted hollow precast reinforced concrete planks
820140004 Suspended Concrete B 58.0
Plywood (temperate, EN636-2) on insulation on
164

grouted hollow precast prestressed concrete planks
820140007 Suspended Concrete D 110.0
Plywood (temperate, EN636-2) on insulation on
grouted hollow precast reinforced concrete planks
D.3.5 Roof
Functional unit for Roofs for Domestic properties:

1m² of roof area (measured horizontally), to satisfy England & Wales Building
Regulations, particularly a U value of 0.16 W/m²K (pitched) or 0.25 W/m²K (flat).
Span of 8m to include a plasterboard ceiling and emulsion paint finish.

912410075 Pitched Roof Timber Construction A+ 59.0

Structurally insulated timber panel system with OSB/3
each side and pentane blown PU insulation, breather
membrane, standing seam organic coated steel sheet
Pitched roof steel construction A+ 57.0
each side and pentane blown PU insulation, breather
membrane, standing seam organic coated steel sheet
1212550003 Low Pitched roof (steel construction) A 95.0
Galvanised steel rafters and joists, double skin built
up roof cladding (aluminium inner lining, insulation,
mill finished aluminium standing seam outer skin)
1112410003 Pitched roof timber construction A+ 52.0
Timber trussed rafters and joists with insulation,
OSB/3 deck, breather membrane, standing seam
organic coated steel sheet.
1212410011 Pitched roof timber construction A+ 41.0

each side, roofing underlay, counter battens, battens,
softwood timber boarding, polyester underlay, Code 5
100% recycled lead sheet
812410027 Pitched roof timber construction A 53.0
Plasterboard, timber trussed rafters with insulation,
roofing underlay, counter battens, battens and
imported Spanish slates
1112690001 Pitched Roof SIP Construction A+ 49.0
2 x 15mm OSB with 112mm rigid urethane insulation,
to give 142mm overall thickness SIP system, breather
membrane, counter battens, battens and UK
produced clay plain tiles.
Pitched roof SIP construction A 42.0
1212690001 2 x 15mm OSB with 112mm rigid urethane insulation,
to give 142mm overall thickness SIP system, breather
membrane, counter battens, battens, plywood
(temperate EN 636-2), building paper, Code 5 100%
recycled lead sheet
812150015 Pitched Roof Steel Construction A 72.0
Galvanised steel rafters and joists with insulation,
battens, breather membrane, plywood (temperate EN
636-2) decking, standing seam copper roof
165

Pitched Roof Steel Construction A 68.0
812150008 Galvanised steel rafters and joists with insulation,
roofing underlay, counter battens, battens and UK
produced slate
D.3.6 Internal walls
General domestic and non domestic construction:

1m² of internal wall or partitioning, to satisfy Building Regulations, and to include
any repair, refurbishment or replacement over a 60 year study period.

809750005 Proprietary and demountable partitions B 64

Enamelled steel partition, mineral wool core
1209750003 Proprietary and demountable partitions B 43
Aluminium framed partitioning system, plasterboard
panels with cardboard honeycomb core, paint
809760002 Framed partitions A 28
Galvanised steel stud, plasterboard, paint
809760054 Framed partitions A 13
Timber cassette internal wall panel with plywood
(softwood) sheathing, plasterboard and paint
809760003 Framed Partitions A+ 15
Timber stud, plasterboard, paint
166
D.3.7 Separating floor
Functional unit for Separating Floor (party floor). Housing only:

1m² of separating floor with a live loading of 1.5 kN/m² to satisfy England & Wales
Building Regulations, in particular a minimum airborne sound insulation D nT,w + Ctr of
45 dB and impact sound insulation L'nT,w of 62 dB (source Approved Document E
2003) and a span of 5m.
Element Element Summary rating Kg of CO2eq

Number (60years)
829910234 Approved Document E: Floor type 3.1A: Platform floor A+ -8.0
- 18mm OSB/3 on plasterboard (total min. 25kg/m²)
on 25mm min. mineral wool (80 kg/m³) on OSB/3 deck
(20kg/m² min.) on timber frame floor structure with
Ceiling Treatment A.
829910211 Robust Detail E-FT-3: Floating Floor Treatment (FFT1 A+ 5.7
with OSB/3 and gypsum based board (13.5kg/m²) with
mineral wool quilt between battens) on Structure
Option B and Ceiling Treatment C
829560015 Panelised steel floor cassette, insulation with OSB/3 A 28.0
floor decking above and plasterboard and OSB/3
floating floor on timber battens. Plasterboard (2 layers
with staggered joints) ceiling fixed to joists using
resilient bars with paint
929560000 Robust detail E-FS-2: Floating Floor Treatment (FFT1 A+ 35.0
with 22mm min chipboard and gypsum based board
(13.5kg/m2) with mineral wool quilt between battens)
on 22mm (min) chipboard decking on Structure option
D and ceiling Treatment B
167
D.3.8 Traditional Construction
Element Green Guide Environmental

Rating score
806170028 External wall A+ 10
Blockwork cavity wall
Brickwork outer leaf, insulation, aircrete blockwork
inner leaf, cement mortar, plaster, paint
820100043 Ground floor B-E 3-0

Solid concrete D 1
Screed on insulation laid on solid 30% PFA concrete
(100% RCA) floor on polyethylene DPM on blinded
recycled aggregate sub-base
812410006 Roof A+ 10
Pitched roof timber construction
Timber trussed rafters and joists with insulation,
roofing underlay, counterbattens, battens and UK
produced clay plain tiles.
809180022 Internal wall

Masonry Partitions A+
Aircrete blockwork with thin joint mortar, plaster,
paint
807280048 Ceiling /Floor /Upper floor A+ 10
Chipboard decking on timber I joist
168
Ruth Sutton University of Liverpool May 2019
item volume scalar (the product of the

Item cost /£ (cost from suupplier)
dimensions that donot change in

Horizontal (fixed or variable)
Thickness/diameter (fixed)
Vertical (varaible)
Density (kg/m3)
Purchase metric
metric unit cost
Variable metric
Vertical (cost)
manufacture)
supplier unit
volume cost
Volume
Metric
Product
Element Component Material
system
Finish Cladding Stone Z-shaped stone cladding 122.50 3.06E-06 m2 40.00 m2 3,000,000 0.0000408
cladding 1200 2500 40 1000 2700 120000000
Finish Cladding Timber Western Red Cedar 2.44 1.37E-06 m 19.00 m2 470,000 0.0000052
cladding
5000 94 19 1000 380 8930000 1
Finish Cladding Metal Zinc cladding 97.50 1.39E-04 M2 0.70 m2 1,000,000 0.0000975
cladding 1000 1000 0.7 1000 7135 700000
Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 1.55 4.31E-08 sheets 12.5 2,880,000 0.0000005
2400 1200 12.5 2400 668 36000000 m2 1000
Incidental Base Frame Steel base frame 938.00 UNIT 1 1 938.0000000
7000 4200 100 1 1 2940000000 unit
Incidental TF/SIP Top plates; 44x240mm SW 3.75 1.46E-07 m 10560 2,440 0.0015369
(sole)plates;
headers &
blockers 2440 44 240 2440 600 25766400 m 1
Insulation Insulation SIP Structural EPS density 20kg/m3 2400 1200 160 2400 20 41.91 9.09E-08 m2 160 2,880,000 0.0000146
insulation
460800000 m2 1
Insulation Insulation Blown Warmcell 1000 1000 240 1000 0.5 1,000.00 unit 240 1,000,000 0.0010000
Insulation 240000000 m2 1000
Insulation Insulation Insulation Rockwool 1200 600 240 1200 40 10.50 6.08E-08 sqm 240 720,000 0.0000146
batts 172800000 m2
Insulation Insulation Insulation Sheep wool 1300 570 240 1000 30 1.03E-07 sqm 240 741,000 0.0000246
batts 177840000 18.23 m2
Panel TF/SIP Panel 89x38mm SW battens 1.88 2.27E-07 m 3382 2,440 0.0007684
Structural
component
2440 89 38 1000 600 8252080 m 1
Membrane TF/SIP Breather Pro Clima Solitex WA 100.00 1.33E-06 Roll 1 75,000,000 0.0000013
membrane 50000 1500 1 1500 0.9 75000000 m2 1
Membrane TF/SIP Damp proof DPM 100.00 1.33E-06 Roll 1 75,000,000 0.0000013
membrane 50000 1500 1 1500 0.9 75000000 m2 1
Membrane TF/SIP Internal Pro Clima Intello Plus 50000 1500 1 1500 0.9 75000000 178.00 2.37E-06 Roll 1 m2 75,000,000 0.0000024 1
Panel TF/SIP membrane
External 38x50mm treated SW 2.50 5.48E-07 m 1900 2,400 0.0010417
battens battens 2400 50 38 1000 600 4560000 m 1
Panel TF panel Panel 240x45mm timber I- 4.54 4.54E+00 10800 1,000 0.0045400
Structural Joist
component 1000 45 240 1000 600 10800000 m m 1
Material Palette Appendix D - pg169



Vertical (varaible)
Density (kg/m3)
Purchase metric
metric unit cost
Variable metric
Vertical (cost)
manufacture)
supplier unit
volume cost
Volume
Metric
Product
system
Panel TF/SIP Internal 44x69mm SW battens 0.94 1.29E-07 m 3036 2,400 0.0003917
battens 2400 69 44 1000 600 7286400 m 1
Panel SIP Panel Sheathing 18mm 2440x1220 OSB3 15.54 2.90E-07 sheets 18 2,976,800 0.0000052
board 2440 1220 18 2440 600 53582400 m2 1
Panel TF panel I joist flange 240x45mm timber I- 4.54 4.54E+00 2025 1,000 0.0045400
Joist flange (soft wood)
1000 45 45 1000 500 2025000 N/A m
Panel TF panel I joist web 240x45mm timber I- 4.54 4.54E+00 90 1,000 0.0045400
Joist web (fibre board) 1000 9 10 1000 900 90000 N/A m
Panel TF panel Panel boxing 240*44mm SW battens 3.75 1.46E-07 m 10560 2,440 0.0015369
C16 2440 240 44 2440 600 25766400 m 1
Panel TF panel Sheathing 11mm 2440x1220 OSB3 10.20 3.11E-07 sheets 11 2,976,800 0.0000034
board 2440 1220 11 2440 600 32744800 m2 1
Structural Structural Structural 90x240mm glulam 17.61 8.15E-07 m 21600 1,000 0.0176100
portal component
1000 90 240 1000 380 21600000 m 1
Structural Structural Structural Steel rsj beam 203*133 62.50 2.31E-06 m 26999 1,000 0.0625000
portal component 1000 133 203 1000 25.1 26999000 m
Structural cementitous Concrete Ready-mix Concrete 458.40 1.01E-07 unit 162.00 28,000,000 0.0000164
4000 7000 162 1000 2332 4536000000 m2 1
Structural Brick Brick LBC COMMON BRICK 390brick 13,975 0.0195349
65MM (60brick per
215 65 102.5 215 1900 1432437.5 273 m2 102.5 m2 1
Structural Block Block TARMAC TOPLITE 1 (10.25 per 94,600 0.0000155
AERATED BLOCK 2.9N 440 215 100 440 1980 9460000 1.47 m2 21500 m2 1
Structure Floor Timber joist Joist (47*220mm) 7.56E-07 1,000 0.0079900
1000 47 225 1000 600 10575000 7.99 m 10575 m 1
Surfacing Floor Floor boards Timber floor boards 4.57E-07 0.0000100
2400 600 22 1000 600 31680000 14.47 m2 22 m2 1440000 1
Structural Wall Mortar brick mortar brick 4.68E-06 0.0004798
10 280 102.5 1000 2332 287000 1.34355 102.5 m2 2800 1
Structural Wall Mortar block mortar block 3 655 100 1000 2332 196500 1.91 9.72E-06 100 m2 1965 0.0009720 1
Lining Internal lining Plaster (wet- Plaster (wet-premixed ) 4.15E-07 0.0000062
premixed ) 1000 1000 15 1 861.5 15000000 6.23 25kg 15 m2 1000000 1
Roof Traditional Roof trusses Roof trusses 1.00E-09 1 1.0000000
1000 1000 1000 1 600 1000000000 1 unit 1 unit 1
Roof Traditional Tiles Tiles 1.05E-06 44,220 0.0000262
268 165 25 1 1085.48 1105500 1.16 unit 25 m2 1
Roof Traditional Tiles Ridge tile #DIV/0!
Floor Traditional Joist hanger Joist hanger 4.79E-04 1 5.9900000

250 50 x 1 n/a n/a 5.99 unit 1 unit 1
Structure Structure Wall ties Wall ties 3.99E-02 1 8.9700000
225 n/a n/a 1 'n/a n/a 8.97 50units 1 unit 1
Material Palette Appendix D - pg 170

Other/ internal statement social

Internal document env/other
Internal document quality
Social/chain of cusytody
ems14001: 2004
Manufacturer
Enviromnetal
OHSAS18001
performance
Score x/3
BES6001
BES6001
ISO9001
Supplier
checked
BS 8902
lifetime
Product
PEFC
pefc
bba
FSC
FSC
ETI
system
Finish Cladding Stone Z-shaped stone cladding Taylor Taylor 1 1 2.00 100
cladding Maxwell Maxwell 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Finish Cladding Timber Western Red Cedar Vincent 1 0 2.00 50
cladding Timber
N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1
Finish Cladding Metal Zinc cladding ZM zinc ZM zinc 1 1 3.00 80
cladding 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard Knauf SIG Insulation 1 1 2.00 39
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Incidental Base Frame Steel base frame 1 1 3.00 100
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Incidental TF/SIP Top plates; 44x240mm SW Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60
(sole)plates;
headers &
blockers N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Insulation Insulation SIP Structural EPS density 20kg/m3 Travis Perkins 0 0 0.00 100
insulation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Insulation Insulation Blown Warmcell Warmcel Warmcel 1 1 2.00
Insulation 0 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Insulation Insulation Insulation Rockwool Knauff Travis Perkins 1 1 2.50 100
batts 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5
Insulation Insulation Insulation Sheep wool Thermafleece Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
batts 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Panel TF/SIP Panel 89x38mm SW battens Wisa Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
Structural
component
1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1
Membrane TF/SIP Breather Pro Clima Solitex WA Pro Clima Penycoed 0 1 1.00 100
membrane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Membrane TF/SIP Damp proof DPM Travis Perkins Travis Perkins 0 0 0.00 100
membrane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Membrane TF/SIP Internal Pro Clima Intello Plus Pro Clima Penycoed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00 100
External 38x50mm treated SW Booker Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60
battens battens Timber 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel TF panel Panel 240x45mm timber I- 1 1 3.00 100
Structural Joist
component 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1


ems14001: 2004
Manufacturer
Enviromnetal
OHSAS18001
performance
Score x/3
BES6001
BES6001
ISO9001
Supplier
checked
BS 8902
lifetime
Product
PEFC
pefc
bba
FSC
FSC
ETI
system
Panel TF/SIP Internal 44x69mm SW battens Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60

battens N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel SIP Panel Sheathing 18mm 2440x1220 OSB3 Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
board N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel TF panel I joist flange 240x45mm timber I- 1 1 3.00 60
N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Panel TF panel I joist web 240x45mm timber I- 1 1 3.00 60
Joist web (fibre board) N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Panel TF panel Panel boxing 240*44mm SW battens Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
C16 N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel TF panel Sheathing 11mm 2440x1220 OSB3 Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
board N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Structural Structural Structural 90x240mm glulam Steico Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60
portal component
1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Structural Structural Structural Steel rsj beam 203*133 Metals for u 0 0.5 0.50 60
portal component 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0
Structural cementitous Concrete Ready-mix Concrete 0 1 1 3.00
Agilia 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 100
Structural Brick Brick LBC COMMON BRICK 0 1 1 3.00
65MM
London Brick Jewson 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 100
Structural Block Block TARMAC TOPLITE 0 1 1 3.00
AERATED BLOCK 2.9N Tarmac Jewson 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 100
Structure Floor Timber joist Joist (47*220mm) 0 1 1 3.00
Steico Jewson 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 60
Surfacing Floor Floor boards Timber floor boards 0 1 1 3.00
Steico 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 60
Structural Wall Mortar brick mortar brick 1 1 3.00
5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Structural Wall Mortar block mortar block 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 11 3.00 30
Lining Internal lining Plaster (wet- Plaster (wet-premixed ) 0 1 1 3.00
British
premixed ) gypsum Wickes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 50
Roof Traditional Roof trusses Roof trusses Howarth 0 1 1 3.00
Timber 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Roof Traditional Tiles Tiles 0 1 1 3.00
Sandtoft 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Roof Traditional Tiles Ridge tile 0 1 1 3.00
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Floor Traditional Joist hanger Joist hanger 0 1 1 3.00
Wickes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Structure Structure Wall ties Wall ties 0 1 1 3.00
Jewson 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 50

E PANEL DESIGN
165
E.1.1 Components
Product system Element Component Material
Structural Structural portal Glulam 90x240mm glulam
Structural Structural portal Steel Steel rsj beam 203*133
Panel TF panel I-joists 240x45mm timber I-Joist
Panel TF panel I joist flange 240x45mm timber I-Joist

flange (soft wood)
Panel TF panel I joist web 240x45mm timber I-Joist web
(fibre board)
Panel SIP Panel Structural board SIP 18mm 2440x1220 OSB3
Panel TF panel Sheathing board 11mm 2440x1220 OSB3
Panel TF panel Panel structure C16 top and 240*44mm SW battens

bottom of panel
Incidental Fabric assembly Top plates; (sole)plates; 44x240mm SW
headers & blockers
Internal panel TF panel Structural stud 89x38mm SW battens
Panel External panel faces External battens 38x50mm treated SW battens

(excluding floor)
Panel Internal panel faces Internal battens 44x69mm SW battens
(Excluding floor) (plaster board)
Insulation Insulation Warmcel Blown material density xxx
Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool
Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool
Insulation / Insulation SIP panel sandwich EPS density 20kg/m3

Internal panel
Cladding Cladding Red Cedar 94x19mm Western Red Cedar
Cladding Cladding Zinc 4mm thick cladding jointed

using a 25mm standing seam
Cladding Cladding Stone cladding Taylor Maxwell z-shaped stone
(overlap of 75mm) 600mm
cladding
spacing
Lining Lining Plasterboard Board: square edge

12.5x1200x2400mm;
Membrane Membrane Internal membrane Pro Clima Intello Plus
Membrane Membrane Breather membrane Pro Clima Solitex WA
Membrane Membrane Damp proof membrane DPM
174
Summary of chosen volumetric design solution
Unit Wall Floor Upper floor /ceiling Internal wall
Ground floor 2400*2400 2400*4200 2400*4200 4200*2400
Kitchen 4200*2400
Ground floor 4600*2400 4600*1000 4600*1000 1000*2400
Hall 1000*2400
Ground floor 3200*2400 3200*4600 3200*4600 3200*2400
lounge 4600*2400 4600*2400
First Floor 1800*2400 1800*2400 1800*2400 1800*2400

Bathroom
2400*2400 2400*2400
First Floor 900*2400
Hall 1800*2400
1000*2400
600*1000
First Floor 3200*2400 3200*3700 3200*3700
Bedroom 1 3700*2400
First Floor 2400*2400 2400*3300 2400*3300
Bedroom 2 3300*2400
175
Materials: Panel width =600mm
Total weight
Material Number of pieces Weight
Wall
24.48
I joist (90*sw90) 2 12.24
C16 2 3.8 7.6
Screw 16 0.002 0.032

15.55
OSB 1 15.55
0.06
nail fixings 60 0.001
insulation 1 <2.5 2.5
0.05
airtightness membrane 1 0.05
tacks 60 0.001 0.03
Roof
42.84
I joist 2 21.42
7.6
C16 2 3.8
0.032
Screw 16 0.002
31.1
OSB 2 15.55
0.096
nail fixings 96 0.001
2.5
insulation 1 <2.5
31.1
OSB sheathing board 2 15.55
0.48
tacks 96 0.005
Floor
80
I joist (90*sw90) 2 40.0
C16 2 3.8 7.6
Screw 16 0.002 0.032

15.6
OSB 1 15.552
nail fixings 96 0.001 0.10

0.05

tacks 0.48
96 0.005
176
Materials: Panel width =1200mm
Material Number of pieces Weight Total weight
Wall
I joist (90*sw90) 3 12.24 36.72
C16 2 7.6 15.2
Screw 16 0.002 0.032
OSB sheathing board 1 15.55 15.55
insulation 2 <2.5 5
airtightness membrane 1 0.05 0.05
tacks 96 0.001 0.10
Roof Total weight
I joist 3 21.42 64.26
C16 2 7.6 15.2
Screw 16 0.002 0.032
tacks 150 0.001 0.15
Floor
I joist (90*sw90) 2 40.0 80.0
C16 1 7.6 15.2
Screw 16 0.002 0.032
nail fixings 108 0.001 0.108
insulation 1
tacks 96 0.005 0.48
177
F MANUFACTURE OF COMPONENTS
179


Vertical (varaible)
Density (kg/m3)
Purchase metric
metric unit cost
Variable metric
Vertical (cost)
manufacture)
supplier unit
volume cost
Volume
Metric
Product
system
Finish Cladding Stone Z-shaped stone cladding 122.50 3.06E-06 m2 40.00 m2 3,000,000 0.0000408
cladding 1200 2500 40 1000 2700 120000000
Finish Cladding Timber Western Red Cedar 2.44 1.37E-06 m 19.00 m2 470,000 0.0000052
cladding
5000 94 19 1000 380 8930000 1
Finish Cladding Metal Zinc cladding 97.50 1.39E-04 M2 0.70 m2 1,000,000 0.0000975
cladding 1000 1000 0.7 1000 7135 700000
Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 1.55 4.31E-08 sheets 12.5 2,880,000 0.0000005
2400 1200 12.5 2400 668 36000000 m2 1000
Incidental Base Frame Steel base frame 938.00 UNIT 1 1 938.0000000
7000 4200 100 1 1 2940000000 unit
Incidental TF/SIP Top plates; 44x240mm SW 3.75 1.46E-07 m 10560 2,440 0.0015369
(sole)plates;
headers &
blockers 2440 44 240 2440 600 25766400 m 1
Insulation Insulation SIP Structural EPS density 20kg/m3 2400 1200 160 2400 20 41.91 9.09E-08 m2 160 2,880,000 0.0000146
insulation
460800000 m2 1
Insulation Insulation Blown Warmcell 1000 1000 240 1000 0.5 1,000.00 unit 240 1,000,000 0.0010000
Insulation 240000000 m2 1000
Insulation Insulation Insulation Rockwool 1200 600 240 1200 40 10.50 6.08E-08 sqm 240 720,000 0.0000146
batts 172800000 m2
Insulation Insulation Insulation Sheep wool 1300 570 240 1000 30 1.03E-07 sqm 240 741,000 0.0000246
batts 177840000 18.23 m2
Panel TF/SIP Panel 89x38mm SW battens 1.88 2.27E-07 m 3382 2,440 0.0007684
Structural
component
2440 89 38 1000 600 8252080 m 1
Membrane TF/SIP Breather Pro Clima Solitex WA 100.00 1.33E-06 Roll 1 75,000,000 0.0000013
membrane 50000 1500 1 1500 0.9 75000000 m2 1
Membrane TF/SIP Damp proof DPM 100.00 1.33E-06 Roll 1 75,000,000 0.0000013
membrane 50000 1500 1 1500 0.9 75000000 m2 1
Membrane TF/SIP Internal Pro Clima Intello Plus 50000 1500 1 1500 0.9 75000000 178.00 2.37E-06 Roll 1 m2 75,000,000 0.0000024 1
External 38x50mm treated SW 2.50 5.48E-07 m 1900 2,400 0.0010417
battens battens 2400 50 38 1000 600 4560000 m 1
Panel TF panel Panel 240x45mm timber I- 4.54 4.54E+00 10800 1,000 0.0045400
Structural Joist
component 1000 45 240 1000 600 10800000 m m 1



Vertical (varaible)
Density (kg/m3)
Purchase metric
metric unit cost
Variable metric
Vertical (cost)
manufacture)
supplier unit
volume cost
Volume
Metric
Product
system
Panel TF/SIP Internal 44x69mm SW battens 0.94 1.29E-07 m 3036 2,400 0.0003917
battens 2400 69 44 1000 600 7286400 m 1
Panel SIP Panel Sheathing 18mm 2440x1220 OSB3 15.54 2.90E-07 sheets 18 2,976,800 0.0000052
board 2440 1220 18 2440 600 53582400 m2 1
Panel TF panel I joist flange 240x45mm timber I- 4.54 4.54E+00 2025 1,000 0.0045400
1000 45 45 1000 500 2025000 N/A m
Panel TF panel I joist web 240x45mm timber I- 4.54 4.54E+00 90 1,000 0.0045400
Joist web (fibre board) 1000 9 10 1000 900 90000 N/A m
Panel TF panel Panel boxing 240*44mm SW battens 3.75 1.46E-07 m 10560 2,440 0.0015369
C16 2440 240 44 2440 600 25766400 m 1
Panel TF panel Sheathing 11mm 2440x1220 OSB3 10.20 3.11E-07 sheets 11 2,976,800 0.0000034
board 2440 1220 11 2440 600 32744800 m2 1
Structural Structural Structural 90x240mm glulam 17.61 8.15E-07 m 21600 1,000 0.0176100
portal component
1000 90 240 1000 380 21600000 m 1
Structural Structural Structural Steel rsj beam 203*133 62.50 2.31E-06 m 26999 1,000 0.0625000
portal component 1000 133 203 1000 25.1 26999000 m
Structural cementitous Concrete Ready-mix Concrete 458.40 1.01E-07 unit 162.00 28,000,000 0.0000164
4000 7000 162 1000 2332 4536000000 m2 1
Structural Brick Brick LBC COMMON BRICK 390brick 13,975 0.0195349
65MM (60brick per
215 65 102.5 215 1900 1432437.5 273 m2 102.5 m2 1
Structural Block Block TARMAC TOPLITE 1 (10.25 per 94,600 0.0000155
AERATED BLOCK 2.9N 440 215 100 440 1980 9460000 1.47 m2 21500 m2 1
Structure Floor Timber joist Joist (47*220mm) 7.56E-07 1,000 0.0079900
1000 47 225 1000 600 10575000 7.99 m 10575 m 1
Surfacing Floor Floor boards Timber floor boards 4.57E-07 0.0000100
2400 600 22 1000 600 31680000 14.47 m2 22 m2 1440000 1
Structural Wall Mortar brick mortar brick 4.68E-06 0.0004798
10 280 102.5 1000 2332 287000 1.34355 102.5 m2 2800 1
Structural Wall Mortar block mortar block 3 655 100 1000 2332 196500 1.91 9.72E-06 100 m2 1965 0.0009720 1
Lining Internal lining Plaster (wet- Plaster (wet-premixed ) 4.15E-07 0.0000062
premixed ) 1000 1000 15 1 861.5 15000000 6.23 25kg 15 m2 1000000 1
Roof Traditional Roof trusses Roof trusses 1.00E-09 1 1.0000000
1000 1000 1000 1 600 1000000000 1 unit 1 unit 1
Roof Traditional Tiles Tiles 1.05E-06 44,220 0.0000262
268 165 25 1 1085.48 1105500 1.16 unit 25 m2 1
Roof Traditional Tiles Ridge tile #DIV/0!
Floor Traditional Joist hanger Joist hanger 4.79E-04 1 5.9900000

250 50 x 1 n/a n/a 5.99 unit 1 unit 1
Structure Structure Wall ties Wall ties 3.99E-02 1 8.9700000
225 n/a n/a 1 'n/a n/a 8.97 50units 1 unit 1


ems14001: 2004
Manufacturer
Enviromnetal
OHSAS18001
performance
Score x/3
BES6001
BES6001
ISO9001
Supplier
checked
BS 8902
lifetime
Product
PEFC
pefc
bba
FSC
FSC
ETI
system
Finish Cladding Stone Z-shaped stone cladding Taylor Taylor 1 1 2.00 100
cladding Maxwell Maxwell 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Finish Cladding Timber Western Red Cedar Vincent 1 0 2.00 50
cladding Timber
N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1
Finish Cladding Metal Zinc cladding ZM zinc ZM zinc 1 1 3.00 80
cladding 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard Knauf SIG Insulation 1 1 2.00 39
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Incidental Base Frame Steel base frame 1 1 3.00 100
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Incidental TF/SIP Top plates; 44x240mm SW Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60
(sole)plates;
headers &
blockers N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Insulation Insulation SIP Structural EPS density 20kg/m3 Travis Perkins 0 0 0.00 100
insulation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Insulation Insulation Blown Warmcell Warmcel Warmcel 1 1 2.00
Insulation 0 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Insulation Insulation Insulation Rockwool Knauff Travis Perkins 1 1 2.50 100
batts 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5
Insulation Insulation Insulation Sheep wool Thermafleece Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
batts 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Panel TF/SIP Panel 89x38mm SW battens Wisa Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
Structural
component
1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 1
Membrane TF/SIP Breather Pro Clima Solitex WA Pro Clima Penycoed 0 1 1.00 100
membrane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Membrane TF/SIP Damp proof DPM Travis Perkins Travis Perkins 0 0 0.00 100
membrane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Membrane TF/SIP Internal Pro Clima Intello Plus Pro Clima Penycoed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00 100
External 38x50mm treated SW Booker Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60
battens battens Timber 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel TF panel Panel 240x45mm timber I- 1 1 3.00 100
Structural Joist
component 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1


ems14001: 2004
Manufacturer
Enviromnetal
OHSAS18001
performance
Score x/3
BES6001
BES6001
ISO9001
Supplier
checked
BS 8902
lifetime
Product
PEFC
pefc
bba
FSC
FSC
ETI
system
Panel TF/SIP Internal 44x69mm SW battens Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60

battens N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel SIP Panel Sheathing 18mm 2440x1220 OSB3 Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
board N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel TF panel I joist flange 240x45mm timber I- 1 1 3.00 60
N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Panel TF panel I joist web 240x45mm timber I- 1 1 3.00 60
Joist web (fibre board) N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Panel TF panel Panel boxing 240*44mm SW battens Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
C16 N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Panel TF panel Sheathing 11mm 2440x1220 OSB3 Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 100
board N/A 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1
Structural Structural Structural 90x240mm glulam Steico Travis Perkins 1 1 3.00 60
portal component
1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Structural Structural Structural Steel rsj beam 203*133 Metals for u 0 0.5 0.50 60
portal component 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0
Structural cementitous Concrete Ready-mix Concrete 0 1 1 3.00
Agilia 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 100
Structural Brick Brick LBC COMMON BRICK 0 1 1 3.00
65MM
London Brick Jewson 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 100
Structural Block Block TARMAC TOPLITE 0 1 1 3.00
AERATED BLOCK 2.9N Tarmac Jewson 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 100
Structure Floor Timber joist Joist (47*220mm) 0 1 1 3.00
Steico Jewson 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 60
Surfacing Floor Floor boards Timber floor boards 0 1 1 3.00
Steico 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 60
Structural Wall Mortar brick mortar brick 1 1 3.00
5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Structural Wall Mortar block mortar block 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 11 3.00 30
Lining Internal lining Plaster (wet- Plaster (wet-premixed ) 0 1 1 3.00
British
premixed ) gypsum Wickes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 50
Roof Traditional Roof trusses Roof trusses Howarth 0 1 1 3.00
Timber 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Roof Traditional Tiles Tiles 0 1 1 3.00
Sandtoft 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Roof Traditional Tiles Ridge tile 0 1 1 3.00
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Floor Traditional Joist hanger Joist hanger 0 1 1 3.00
Wickes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 100
Structure Structure Wall ties Wall ties 0 1 1 3.00
Jewson 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 50

component
Horizontal (fixed Assembly dimension component Number in Total assembly cutting
Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) assembly width length variable volume assembly component cost Total cost volume maintenance numbers
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
component dimensions
Horizontal (fixed Assembly dimension that donot component Number in Total assembly cutting
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) assembly width length variable change in volume assembly component cost Total cost volume maintenance numbers
Panel Structural 240x45mm

600 internal wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 2400 2400 m 0 2 10.90 21.79 0 1.00 0


44x69mm SW
1200 internal wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 1 2400 m 7286400 4 0.94 3.76 29145600 2.00 4
600 wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 600 4200 2520000 m2 18000000 1 0.78 0.78 18000000 3.00 2

600 roof gable Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 1349 1349 m 0 2 6.12 12.25 0 1.00 0
11mm 2440x1220
1200 roof Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 1200 2177 2612400 m2 28736400 2 8.95 17.90 57472800 1.00 4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 600 1349 809400 m2 8903400 2 2.77 5.55 17806800 1.00 4
240*44mm SW
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 600 1 600 m 6336000 2 0.92 1.84 12672000 1.00 4
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
Internal Pro Clima Intello
1200 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 1200 4200 5040000 m2 5040000 1 11.96 11.96 5040000 1.00 1
Breather Pro Clima Solitex
600 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 600 1349 809400 m2 2428200 1 3.24 3.24 2428200 1.00 1

600 roof Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 2177 2177 m 0 2 9.88 19.77 0 1.00 0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 4200 1 4200 m 7286400 2 0.94 1.88 14572800 2.00 4
600 internal wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 600 2400 1440000 m2 18000000 1 0.78 0.78 18000000 3.00 2
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
1800 wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 1800 2400 4320000 m2 47520000 2 14.80 29.60 95040000 1.00 4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
185
item volume
scalar (the
product of the



38x50mm treated
600 wall Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 2400 1 2400 m 4560000 2 2.50 5.00 9120000 2.00 4
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 600 2400 1440000 m2 15840000 2 4.93 9.87 31680000 1.00 4
240*44mm SW
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 600 1 600 m 6336000 2 0.92 1.84 12672000 1.00 4
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

38x50mm treated
600 roof Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 2177 1 2177 m 4136300 2 2.27 4.54 8272600 2.00 4
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 600 4200 2520000 m2 27720000 2 8.63 17.27 55440000 1.00 4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
2400 roof Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2400 1 2400 m 25344000 2 3.69 7.38 50688000 1.00 4
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW


44x69mm SW
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 1 2400 m 7286400 2 0.94 1.88 14572800 2.00 4
186
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
1200 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 1800 4200 7560000 m2 2520000 1 5.98 5.98 2520000 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 600 1 600 m 6336000 2 0.92 1.84 12672000 1.00 4
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

1800 wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 2400 2400 m 0 4 10.90 43.58 0 1.00 0



38x50mm treated
600 roof gable Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 1349 1 1349 m 2563100 2 1.41 2.81 5126200 2.00 4
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 600 2400 1440000 m2 1440000 1 1.92 1.92 1440000 1.00 1
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 600 2177 1306200 m2 1306200 1 1.74 1.74 1306200 1.00 1
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 600 2400 1440000 m2 2880000 1 6.84 6.84 2880000 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 1200 4200 5040000 m2 1618800 1 3.84 3.84 1618800 1.00 1
187
item volume
scalar (the
product of the

600 ceiling Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 2400 2400 m 0 2 10.90 21.79 0 1.00 2


11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 600 2400 1440000 m2 15840000 2 10.90 21.79 31680000 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 1 2400 m 0 2 0.00 0.01 0 2.00 2
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 600 2400 1440000 m2 18720000 1 10.90 10.90 18720000 3.00 1
600 upper floor Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 600 2400 1440000 m2 32760000 1 1.41 1.41 32760000 3.00 1
240*44mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 600 1 600 m 6336000 1 0.92 0.92 6336000 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 upper floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 2400 2400 m 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 1.00 1


11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 600 1 600 m 6336000 2 0.92 1.84 12672000 1.00 2
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1 2400 2400 m 0 3 10.90 32.69 0 1.00 2


11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 600 2400 1440000 m2 15840000 1 4.93 4.93 15840000 1.00 2
11mm 2440x1220
188
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

189
item volume
scalar (the
product of the

11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
190
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
191
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 3200 2400 7680000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 4600 400 1840000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 4600 400 1840000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 3200 2400 7680000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 4600 2400 11040000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 4600 1000 4600000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 900 2400 2160000 m2 1618800 2 0.50 1.01 3237600 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 4600 1000 4600000 m2 1618800 1 0.50 0.50 1618800 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 3700 3200 11840000 m2 1618800 1 0.50 0.50 1618800 1.00 1
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 200 600 120000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 400 600 240000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
192
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 400 600 240000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 200 600 120000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 400 600 240000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 400 600 240000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 300 600 180000 m 1618800 2 0.24 0.47 3237600 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 400 600 240000 m 1618800 1 0.24 0.24 1618800 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 100 600 60000 m 1618800 1 0.24 0.24 1618800 1.00 1
240*44mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 400 600 240000 m 1618800 2 0.21 0.42 3237600 2.00 1
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 200 600 120000 m 1618800 2 0.21 0.42 3237600 2.00 1
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 400 600 240000 m 1618800 2 0.21 0.42 3237600 2.00 1
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 300 600 180000 m 1618800 2 0.21 0.42 3237600 2.00 1
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 400 600 240000 m 1618800 1 0.21 0.21 1618800 2.00 1
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 100 600 60000 m 1618800 1 0.21 0.21 1618800 2.00 1
193
item volume
scalar (the
product of the
44x69mm SW
194
cutting
number of number of
width
Horizontal (fixed width cuts cutting remainder length cuts cutting remainder
Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) length width depth length width depth length width (length run) length board (width run) width board
length left
Piece larger than
after
purchase size manufactured piece standard size (the cut travel cut travel width
components
extra bit)
Horizontal (fixed cut
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component or variable)

600 internal wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 2400 45 90 2400 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


44x69mm SW
1200 internal wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 2400 69 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 2400 1200 13 2400 600 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

600 roof gable Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1349 45 90 1349 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11mm 2440x1220
1200 roof Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 2177 1200 11 0 957 1 1220 263 1 1220 0 0
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 600 11 0 129 1 1220 1091 2 1220 13420 20
240*44mm SW
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 600 240 44 0 360 1 240 2400 0 0 0 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
1200 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 50000 1500 1 4200 1200 1 0 0 11 16500 3800 1 16500 16500 300
600 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 50000 1500 1 1349 1800 1 0 0 37 0 0 1 55500 0 1500

600 roof Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 2177 45 90 2177 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 2400 69 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 internal wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 2400 1200 13 2400 600 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
1800 wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 2400 1800 11 0 580 1 1220 40 1 1220 0 1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
195
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)



38x50mm treated
600 wall Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 2400 50 38 2400 50 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 2400 600 11 0 1180 1 1220 40 2 1220 13420 20
240*44mm SW
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 600 240 44 0 360 1 240 2400 0 0 0 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

38x50mm treated
600 roof Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 2400 50 38 2177 50 38 0 0 1 50 223 0 50 0 0
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 4200 600 11 1760 2980 1 1220 0 1 0 0 0
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
2400 roof Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 2400 240 44 0 2160 1 240 40 0 240 0 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW


44x69mm SW
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 2400 69 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
196
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
1200 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 50000 1500 1 4200 600 1 0 2700 11 16500 3800 1 16500 0 0
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 600 240 44 0 360 1 240 2400 0 0 0 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

1800 wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 2400 45 90 2400 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



38x50mm treated
600 roof gable Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 2400 50 38 1349 50 38 0 0 1 50 1051 0 50 0 0
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 50000 1500 1 2400 600 1 0 0 20 30000 2000 2 30000 30000 300
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 50000 1500 1 2177 600 1 0 0 22 33000 2106 2 33000 33000 300
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 50000 1500 1 2400 1200 1 0 0 20 30000 2000 1 30000 30000 300
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 50000 1500 1 1349 1200 1 0 0 37 55500 87 1 55500 55500 300
197
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)

600 ceiling Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 2400 45 90 2400 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2400 45 90 2400 600 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 585
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 1 45 90 1 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 2400 1200 13 2400 600 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
600 upper floor Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 2400 1200 13 4200 600 13 1800 3000 1 1200 0 2 0 15000 0
240*44mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 600 240 44 0 360 1 240 2400 0 0 0 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 upper floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1000 45 240 2400 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 600 240 44 0 360 4 960 40 0 960 0 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 2400 45 90 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 2400 600 11 0 1180 1 1220 40 2 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
198
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

1200 floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 1000 45 240 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
199
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)

11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
200
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
201
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2440 1220 11 1349 1200 1 0 0 1 1220 1091 1 1220 13420 20
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
202
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2440 240 44 1349 1200 1 0 960 1 240 1091 1 240 0 1200
240*44mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 1349 1200 1 0 1131 1 69 1051 1 69 0 1173
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 1349 1200 1 0 1131 1 69 1051 1 69 0 1173
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 1349 1200 1 0 1131 1 69 1051 1 69 0 1173
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 1349 1200 1 0 1131 1 69 1051 1 69 0 1173
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 1349 1200 1 0 1131 1 69 1051 1 69 0 1173
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2400 69 44 1349 1200 1 0 1131 1 69 1051 1 69 0 1173
203
length left
Piece larger than
after
components
extra bit)
44x69mm SW
204
Horizontal (fixed output cutting time

Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) sheets mm (m/min) (seconds) number seconds seconds £ 0.01 £ 0.00 m3 900
cutting
total Per item Machinery Set
/travel
cutting Power cost up (shared
rate
Horizontal (fixed travel Per item (not including Labour cost total labour TotalManufactu Piece Material price across all
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) distance whole pieces loading timing setup cost) (machining) cost re cost volume (per piece) pieces)

600 internal wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 39.1


44x69mm SW
1200 internal wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 5 0 0 0 5 15.41 3.08 12.33 £ - 0.00 £ 0.01 0.05 £ 0.01 0.0073 0.94 45.0
600 wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 5 0 0 0 5 15.41 3.08 3.08 £ - 0.00 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.01 0.0180 0.78 112.5

600 roof gable Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 39.1
11mm 2440x1220
1200 roof Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 5 2440 0 878 5 15.41 178.76 357.52 £ 0.04 0.08 £ 0.77 1.54 £ 0.81 0.0000 8.95 19.6
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 9 2440 0 878 9 15.41 99.31 198.62 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.43 0.85 £ 0.45 0.0089 2.77 21.4
240*44mm SW
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 5 240 0 86 5 15.41 20.36 40.72 £ 0.00 0.01 £ 0.09 0.18 £ 0.09 0.0000 0.92 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
1200 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 12 33000 0 11880 12 15.41 991.28 991.28 £ 0.21 0.21 £ 4.26 4.26 £ 4.47 0.0050 11.96 180.0
600 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 38 55500 0 19980 38 15.41 526.20 526.20 £ 0.11 0.11 £ 2.26 2.26 £ 2.37 0.0024 3.24 300.0

600 roof Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 39.1
44x69mm SW
600 internal wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 8 552 0 199 8 15.41 26.77 53.53 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.12 0.23 £ 0.12 0.0018 0.24 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 5 0 0 0 5 15.41 3.08 6.16 £ - 0.00 £ 0.01 0.03 £ 0.01 0.0073 0.94 75.0
600 internal wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 5 0 0 0 5 15.41 3.08 3.08 £ - 0.00 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.01 0.0180 0.78 112.5
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
1800 wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 5 2440 0 878 5 15.41 178.76 357.52 £ 0.04 0.08 £ 0.77 1.54 £ 0.81 0.0000 14.80 23.7
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
205
cutting
/travel
rate



38x50mm treated
600 wall Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 5 0 0 0 5 15.41 3.08 6.16 £ - 0.00 £ 0.01 0.03 £ 0.01 0.0046 2.50 150.0
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 9 2440 0 878 9 15.41 99.31 198.62 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.43 0.85 £ 0.45 0.0158 4.93 21.4
240*44mm SW
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 5 240 0 86 5 15.41 20.36 40.72 £ 0.00 0.01 £ 0.09 0.18 £ 0.09 0.0000 0.92 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

38x50mm treated
600 roof Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 5 100 0 36 5 15.41 10.28 20.56 £ 0.00 0.00 £ 0.04 0.09 £ 0.05 0.0041 2.27 150.0
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 5 1220 0 439 5 15.41 90.92 181.84 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.39 0.78 £ 0.41 0.0000 8.63 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
2400 roof Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 5 480 0 173 5 15.41 37.64 75.28 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.16 0.32 £ 0.17 0.0253 3.69 64.3
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW


44x69mm SW
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 5 0 0 0 5 15.41 3.08 6.16 £ - 0.00 £ 0.01 0.03 £ 0.01 0.0073 0.94 75.0
206
cutting
/travel
rate
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
1200 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 12 33000 0 11880 12 15.41 991.28 991.28 £ 0.21 0.21 £ 4.26 4.26 £ 4.47 0.0000 5.98 180.0
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 5 240 0 86 5 15.41 20.36 40.72 £ 0.00 0.01 £ 0.09 0.18 £ 0.09 0.0000 0.92 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

1800 wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 47.4



38x50mm treated
600 roof gable Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens 5 100 0 36 5 15.41 10.28 20.56 £ 0.00 0.00 £ 0.04 0.09 £ 0.05 0.0026 1.41 150.0
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 22 60000 0 21600 22 15.41 982.52 982.52 £ 0.21 0.21 £ 4.22 4.22 £ 4.43 0.0014 1.92 300.0
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA 24 66000 0 23760 24 15.41 990.64 990.64 £ 0.21 0.21 £ 4.26 4.26 £ 4.47 0.0013 1.74 300.0
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 21 60000 0 21600 21 15.41 1029.31 1029.31 £ 0.22 0.22 £ 4.42 4.42 £ 4.64 0.0029 6.84 450.0
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus 38 111000 0 39960 38 15.41 1051.98 1051.98 £ 0.22 0.22 £ 4.52 4.52 £ 4.75 0.0016 3.84 450.0
207
cutting
/travel
rate

600 ceiling Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 39.1


11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 2 0 0 0 2 15.41 7.71 15.41 £ - 0.00 £ 0.03 0.07 £ 0.03 0.0000 10.90 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 3 0 0 0 3 15.41 5.14 5.14 £ - 0.00 £ 0.02 0.02 £ 0.02 0.0187 10.90 112.5
600 upper floor Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 3 1200 0 432 3 15.41 149.14 149.14 £ 0.03 0.03 £ 0.64 0.64 £ 0.67 0.0328 1.41 112.5
240*44mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 2 240 0 86 2 15.41 50.91 50.91 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.22 0.22 £ 0.23 0.0000 0.92 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 upper floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 39.1


11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 6 1920 0 691 6 15.41 117.77 235.54 £ 0.02 0.05 £ 0.51 1.01 £ 0.53 0.0063 0.92 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.0000 0.00 39.1


11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 5 2440 0 878 5 15.41 178.76 178.76 £ 0.04 0.04 £ 0.77 0.77 £ 0.81 0.0158 4.93 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
208
cutting
/travel
rate
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
1200 ceiling Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 3 4880 0 1757 3 15.41 590.74 1181.47 £ 0.13 0.25 £ 2.54 5.08 £ 2.66 0.0000 2.47 19.6
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
1200 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2402 331200 0 119232 2402 15.41 49.65 198.58 £ 0.01 0.04 £ 0.21 0.85 £ 0.22 0.0001 0.01 45.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
1200 ceiling Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 4 4800 0 1728 4 15.41 435.85 435.85 £ 0.09 0.09 £ 1.87 1.87 £ 1.97 0.0094 0.40 112.5
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

209
cutting
/travel
rate

11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
210
cutting
/travel
rate
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
2400 upper floor Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard 3 0 0 0 3 15.41 5.14 5.14 £ - 0.00 £ 0.02 0.02 £ 0.02 0.0187 0.81 112.5
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
211
cutting
/travel
rate
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 893.81 £ 0.09 0.19 £ 1.92 3.84 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 446.91 £ 0.09 0.09 £ 1.92 1.92 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 2 2440 0 878 2 15.41 446.91 446.91 £ 0.09 0.09 £ 1.92 1.92 £ 2.01 0.0016 0.50 21.4
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
212
cutting
/travel
rate
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 188.21 £ 0.02 0.04 £ 0.40 0.81 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 94.11 £ 0.02 0.02 £ 0.40 0.40 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 2 480 0 173 2 15.41 94.11 94.11 £ 0.02 0.02 £ 0.40 0.40 £ 0.42 0.0016 0.24 52.9
240*44mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 65.09 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.28 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 65.09 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.28 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 65.09 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.28 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 65.09 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.28 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 65.09 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.28 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 32.55 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.14 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens 2 138 0 50 2 15.41 32.55 32.55 £ 0.01 0.01 £ 0.14 0.14 £ 0.15 0.0016 0.21 75.0
213
cutting
/travel
rate
44x69mm SW
214
Horizontal (fixed component

Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) £ 15.47 material density mass total mass
Labour cost
(set up
Horizontal (fixed adjusted per component
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component or variable) piece ) material density mass total mass

600 internal wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.17 600 4.86 9.72


44x69mm SW
1200 internal wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.19 600.00 4.37184 17.48736
600 wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard £ 0.48 668.00 12.024 12.024

600 roof gable Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.17 600 2.731725 5.46345
11mm 2440x1220
1200 roof Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.08 600.00 17.24184 34.48368
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 5.34204 10.68408
240*44mm SW
600 roof gable Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 3.8016 7.6032
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
1200 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus £ 0.77 0.90 0.004536 0.004536
600 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA £ 1.29 0.90 0.00218538 0.00218538

600 roof Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.17 600 4.408425 8.81685
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 4.37184 8.74368
600 internal wall Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard £ 0.48 668.00 12.024 12.024
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
1800 wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.10 600.00 28.512 57.024
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
215
Labour cost
(set up



38x50mm treated
600 wall Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens £ 0.64 600.00 2.736 5.472
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 9.504 19.008
240*44mm SW
600 internal wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 3.8016 7.6032
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

38x50mm treated
600 roof Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens £ 0.64 600.00 2.48178 4.96356
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 16.632 33.264
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
2400 roof Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.28 600.00 15.2064 30.4128
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW


44x69mm SW
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 4.37184 8.74368
216
Labour cost
(set up
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
1200 roof gable Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus £ 0.77 0.90 0.002268 0.002268
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 3.8016 7.6032
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

1800 wall Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.20 600 4.86 19.44



38x50mm treated
600 roof gable Panel TF/SIP External battens SW battens £ 0.64 600.00 1.53786 3.07572
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
38x50mm treated
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA £ 1.29 0.90 0.001296 0.001296
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane WA £ 1.29 0.90 0.00117558 0.00117558
600 roof Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus £ 1.93 0.90 0.002592 0.002592
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Membrane TF/SIP membrane Plus £ 1.93 0.90 0.00145692 0.00145692
217
Labour cost
(set up

600 ceiling Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.17 600 4.86 9.72


11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 9.504 19.008
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600 4.86 9.72
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard £ 0.48 668.00 12.50496 12.50496
600 upper floor Finish Lining Drylining Plasterboard £ 0.48 668.00 21.88368 21.88368
240*44mm SW
600 upper floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 3.8016 3.8016
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 upper floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.17 600 4.86 4.86


11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 3.8016 7.6032
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

600 floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ 0.17 600 4.86 14.58


11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF panel Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 9.504 9.504
11mm 2440x1220
218
Labour cost
(set up
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
1200 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.19 600.00 0.06336 0.25344
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
1200 upper floor Panel TF panel Panel boxing battens C16 £ - 600.00 7.6032 0
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

1200 upper floor Panel TF panel component timber I-Joist £ - 600 4.86 0


11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW

219
Labour cost
(set up

11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
220
Labour cost
(set up
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
221
Labour cost
(set up
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW



11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 wall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 ceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 0.97128
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
11mm 2440x1220
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Sheathing board OSB3 £ 0.09 600.00 0.97128 0.97128
11mm 2440x1220
240*44mm SW
600 wall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 floor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
222
Labour cost
(set up
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
240*44mm SW
600 internal Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 ceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 0.97128
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
240*44mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF Panel boxing battens C16 £ 0.23 600.00 0.97128 0.97128
240*44mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 floor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
44x69mm SW
600 internal Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 internalwall Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 0.97128 1.94256
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperceiling Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 0.97128 0.97128
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
44x69mm SW
600 upperfloor Panel TF/SIP Internal battens battens £ 0.32 600.00 0.97128 0.97128
223
Labour cost
(set up
44x69mm SW
Horizontal component
(fixed or assembly Assembly dimension component Number in Total assembly maintenanc cutting
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component variable) width length variable volume assembly component cost Total cost volume e numbers
component
assembly Assembly dimension component Number in Total assembly maintenanc cutting
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component Material width length variable volume assembly component cost Total cost volume e numbers
600 ceiling Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 600 4200 2520000 m2 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00 0 0 1
600 ceiling Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 600 4200 2520000 m2 604800000 1 3.68E+01 36.75 604800000 0 1
600 ceiling Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 4200 2520000 m2 604800000 1 6.20E+01 62.00 604800000 0 1
600 floor Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 600 4200 2520000 m2 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00 0 0 1
600 floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 600 4200 2520000 m2 604800000 1 3.68E+01 36.75 604800000 0 1
600 floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 4200 2520000 m2 604800000 1 6.20E+01 62.00 604800000 0 1
600 roof Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 600 2177 1306200 m2 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00 0 0 1
600 roof Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 600 2177 1306200 m2 313488000 1 1.90E+01 19.05 313488000 0 1
600 roof Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 2177 1306200 m2 313488000 1 3.21E+01 32.13 313488000 0 1
600 roof gable Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 600 1349 809400 m2 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00 0 0 1
600 roof gable Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 600 1349 809400 m2 194256000 1 1.18E+01 11.80 194256000 0 1
600 roof gable Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 1349 809400 m2 194256000 1 1.99E+01 19.91 194256000 0 1
600 upper floor Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 600 4200 2520000 m2 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00 0 0 1
600 upper floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 600 4200 2520000 m2 604800000 1 3.68E+01 36.75 604800000 0 1
600 upper floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 4200 2520000 m2 604800000 1 6.20E+01 62.00 604800000 0 1
600 wall Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 600 2400 1440000 m2 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00 0 0 1
600 wall Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 600 2400 1440000 m2 345600000 1 2.10E+01 21.00 345600000 0 1
600 wall Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 2400 1440000 m2 345600000 1 3.54E+01 35.43 345600000 0 1
600 internal wall Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 600 2400 1440000 m2 345600000 1 3.54E+01 35.43 345600000 0 1
Insulation Components Appendix F3 - pg 225

number number
of width of length cutting
output
Horizontal cuts cuts mm (m/min) time
sheets
(fixed or (length cutting remainde (width cutting cutting remainde (seconds)
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component variable) width depth length width depth length width run) length r board run) width width r board number seconds seconds £ 0.02
Per item
length left Power
Piece larger than cutting
after total cost (not
purchase size standard size (the cut travel width /travel
compone cutting including
extra bit) rate
nts cut travel whole Per item setup
Panel size Panel type Product system Element Component Material manufactured piece distance pieces loading timing cost)
600 ceiling Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 1000 1000 240 0 0.0 £ -
600 ceiling Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 1200 600 240 4200 600 240 600.00 0.00 1 600 0 0 0 0 2 600 0.167 216.0 2 16.41 116.2 116.2 £ 0.03 £ 0.029
600 ceiling Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 4200 600 240 300.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 17.41 111.3 111.3 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
600 floor Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 1000 1000 240 0 0.0 £ -
600 floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 1200 600 240 4200 600 240 600.00 0.00 1 600 0 0 0 0 2 600 0.167 216.0 2 19.41 117.7 117.7 £ 0.03 £ 0.029
600 floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 4200 600 240 300.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 20.41 112.8 112.8 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
600 roof Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 1000 1000 240 0 0.0 £ -
600 roof Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 1200 600 240 2177 600 240 977.00 0.00 1 600 0 0 0 0 2 600 0.167 216.0 2 22.41 119.2 119.2 £ 0.03 £ 0.029
600 roof Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 2177 600 240 877.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 23.41 114.3 114.3 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
600 roof gable Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 1000 1000 240 0 0.0 £ -
600 roof gable Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 1200 600 240 1349 600 240 149.00 0.00 1 600 0 0 0 0 2 600 0.167 216.0 2 25.41 120.7 120.7 £ 0.03 £ 0.029
600 roof gable Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 1349 600 240 49.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 26.41 115.8 115.8 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
600 upper floor Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 1000 1000 240 0 0.0 £ -
600 upper floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 1200 600 240 4200 600 240 600.00 0.00 1 600 0 0 0 0 2 600 0.167 216.0 2 28.41 122.2 122.2 £ 0.03 £ 0.029
600 upper floor Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 4200 600 240 300.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 29.41 117.3 117.3 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
600 wall Insulation Insulation Blown Insulation Warmcell 1000 1000 240 0 0.0 £ -
600 wall Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Rockwool 1200 600 240 2400 600 240 0.00 0.00 1 600 0 0 0 0 2 600 0.167 216.0 2 32.41 124.2 124.2 £ 0.03 £ 0.029
600 wall Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 2400 600 240 1100.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 34.41 119.8 119.8 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
600 internal wall Insulation Insulation Insulation batts Sheep wool 1300 570 240 2400 600 240 1100.00 30.00 1 570 0 1 0 570 2 570 0.167 205.2 2 34.41 119.8 119.8 £ 0.03 £ 0.028
Insulation Components Appendix F3 - pg 226

G ASSEMBLY OF COMPONENTS, PANELS AND MODULES
173
Constraint lifting Kg limit

1person 2person 3person 4person
Panel weight 20 40 60 80
Manual Crane 1000
Connecting Distance Number connecting distance to

open closed number Number of time per Connect / to move Time t Total per Total (all Time number of lifting time per connect/ move time t total per total (all time
volumetric of panels weight lifting point lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes) of units weight point lifting point disconnect (average) speed move piece pieces) (minutes)
600 Floor panel o 11 195.5 2 240 480 1500 100 15 735 8085 134.75 1200 Floor panel 6 0 2 240 240 57600 1500 100 15 57855 0 0
600 Wall panels o 72 122.9 2 240 480 1500 100 15 735 52920 882 Wall panels 38 0 2 240 240 57600 1500 100 15 57855 0 0
600 Upper floor o 11 486.0 4 240 960 1500 100 15 1215 13365 222.75 Ceiling panels 6.00 0 2 240 240 57600 1500 100 15 57855 0 0
600 Ceiling panels o 11 901.2 4 240 960 1500 100 15 1215 13365 222.75 Upper floor 6 0 2 240 0
Roof trusses 12 58.2 4 240 960 1500 100 15 1215 14580 243 Roof trusses 12 100 2 240 240 57600 1500 100 15 57855 5785500 96425
600 Roof panels o 22 523.0 2 240 480 1500 100 15 735 16170 269.5 Roof panels 12 0 2 240 240 57600 1500 100 15 57855 0 0
Internal 37 293.0 240 0 1500 100 15 255 9435 157.25 Internal 20 5.72E+02

volumetric of panels weight lifting point lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes) of units weight point lifting point disconnect (average) speed move piece pieces) (minutes)
600 Floor panel o 12 195.5 2 240 480 1500 100 15 975 11700 195 1200 Floor panel 6 0 2 240 480 1500 80 18.75 978.75 5872.5 98
600 Wall panels o 36 122.9 2 240 480 1500 100 15 975 35100 585 Wall panels 20 0 2 240 480 1500 80 18.75 978.75 19575 327
600 Upper floor o 12 486.0 4 240 960 1500 100 15 1935 23220 387 Ceiling panels 12 0 2 240 480 1500 80 18.75 978.75 11745 196
600 Ceiling panels o 12 901.2 4 240 960 1500 100 15 1935 23220 387 First floor wall panels 0 2 240 480 1500 80 18.75 978.75 0 0
Roof trusses 12 58.2 4 240 960 1500 100 15 1935 23220 387 Roof trusses 12 100 2 240 480 1500 80 18.75 978.75 11745 196
600 Roof panels o 22 523.0 2 240 480 1500 100 15 975 21450 358 Roof panels 12 0 2 240 480 1500 80 18.75 978.75 11745 196
Internal 37 293.0 240 0 1500 100 15 255 9435 157.25 Internal 20
Total time
600 2132
1200 5785500
1800 774
2400 562
Volumetric
Timber Frame - Volumetric Assembly Appendix G2 - pg 229


Volume volumetric of units weight lifting point lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes) of units weight point lifting point disconnect (average) speed move piece pieces) (minutes)
600 1v 9 8 240 1920 1000 25 40 1960 17640 294 1200 Floor panel 6 0 2 240 480 1000 80 18.75 978.75 5872.5 98
Roof trusses p 12 4 240 960 1000 25 40 1935 23220 387 Roof trusses 12 100 2 240 480 1000 80 18.75 978.75 11745 196
Total 681 Total 294
volumetric assembly in factory

open
Connecting Distance closed Connecting Distance
open closed number Number of time per Connect / to move Time t Total per Total (all Time volumetri number Number of time per Connect / to move Time t Total per Total (all Time
Volume volumetric of units weight lifting point lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes) Volume c of units weight lifting point lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes)
1 v 36.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 540 19440 324 1 v 20.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 10000 166.6667
2 v 20.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 1935 38700 645 2 v 12.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1935 23220 387
3 v 20.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 540 10800 180 3 v 12.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 6000 100
4 v 16.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 1936 30976 516.26667 4 v 8.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1936 15488 258.1333
5 v 14.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 540 7560 126 5 v 8.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 4000 66.66667
6 v 20.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 1937 38740 645.66667 6 v 10.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1937 19370 322.8333
7 v 15.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 540 8100 135 7 v 9.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 4500 75
8 v 15.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 1938 29070 484.5 8 v 9.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1938 17442 290.7
9 v 23.00 2 240 480 1500 25 60 540 12420 207 9 v 12.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 6000 100
mins 3263.43 mins 1767
hours 54.39 days 3.68125
days 6.80
sec 195806 sec 106020
volumetric assembly in factory2 person
Connecting Distance
open closed number Number of time per Connect / to move Time t Total per Total (all Time
Volume volumetric of units weight lifting point lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes)
1 v 36.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 60 2160 36
2 v 20.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 1935 38700 645
3 v 20.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 60 1200 20
4 v 16.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 1936 30976 516.26667
5 v 14.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 60 840 14
6 v 20.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 1937 38740 645.66667
7 v 15.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 60 900 15
8 v 15.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 1938 29070 484.5
9 v 23.00 0 240 0 1500 25 60 60 1380 23
mins 2399.43
179.00 hours 39.99
days 5.00

connectin
Number connecting Number g time per connect/
number of lifting time per connect/ distance to time t total per total (all time number of lifting lifting disconnec distance to move total per total (all time
of units weight point lifting point disconnect move (average) speed move piece pieces) (minutes) of units weight point point t (average) speed time t move piece pieces) (minutes)
1800 Floor panel 4 540 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 4925 83 2400 Floor panel 3 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 2970 50
Wall panels 25 540 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 14775 247 Wall panels 19 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 9900 165
Ceiling panels 4 720 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 8865 148 Ceiling panels 19.00 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 8910 149
First floor wall panels 4 540 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 0 0 First floor wall panels
3.00 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 0 0
Roof trusses 100 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 8865 148 Roof trusses 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 5940 99
Roof panels 8 720 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 8865 148 Roof panels 6.00 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 5940 99
Internal 14 8.52E+02 Internal 11.00 1.17E+03
connectin
number of lifting time per connect/ distance to time t total per total (all time number of lifting lifting disconnec distance to move total per total (all time
of units weight point lifting point disconnect move (average) speed move piece pieces) (minutes) of units weight point point t (average) speed time t move piece pieces) (minutes)
Floor panel 5 540 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 4925 83 Floor panel 3 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 2970 50
Wall panels 15 540 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 14775 247 Wall panels 10 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 9900 165
Ceiling panels 9 720 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 8865 148 Ceiling panels 9 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 8910 149
First floor wall panels 540 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 0 0 First floor wall panels 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 0 0
Roof trusses 9 100 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 8865 148 Roof trusses 6 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 5940 99
Roof panels 9 720 2 240 480 1500 60 25 985 8865 148 Roof panels 6 2 240 480 1500 50 30 990 5940 99
Internal 14 8.52E+02 Internal 11

connectin
of lifting time per connect/ distance to time t total per total (all time of lifting lifting disconnec distance to move total per total (all time
weight point lifting point disconnect move (average) speed move piece pieces) (minutes) weight point point t (average) speed time t move piece pieces) (minutes)
Floor panel 5 540 2 240 480 1000 60 25 985 4925 83 Floor panel 5 540 2 240 480 1000 60 25 985 4925 83
Roof trusses 9 100 2 240 480 1000 60 25 985 8865 148 Roof trusses 9 100 2 240 480 1000 60 25 985 8865 148
Total 231 Total 231
open open
closed Connecting Connect / Distance closed Number Distance to
volumetri number Number of time per lifting disconnec to move Time t Total per Total (all Time volumetri number of lifting Connecting time Connect / move Time t Total per Total (all Time
Volume c of units weight lifting point point t (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes) Volume c of units weight point per lifting point disconnect (average) Speed move piece pieces) (minutes)
1 v 14.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 7000 116.6667 1 v 10.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 5000 83.333333
2 v 7.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1935 13545 225.75 2 v 6.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1935 11610 193.5
3 v 7.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 3500 58.33333 3 v 6.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 3000 50
4 v 7.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1936 13552 225.8667 4 v 6.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1936 11616 193.6
5 v 6.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 3000 50 5 v 4.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 2000 33.333333
6 v 8.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1937 15496 258.2667 6 v 6.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1937 11622 193.7
7 v 5.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 2500 41.66667 7 v 5.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 2500 41.666667
8 v 5.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1938 9690 161.5 8 v 5.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 1938 9690 161.5
9 v 9.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 4500 75 9 v 7.00 2 240 480 500 25 20 500 3500 58.333333
mins 1213.05 mins 1008.9667
days 2.527188 days 2.1020139
sec 72783 sec 60538

Assembly of a panel
The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres.
Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed.
The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached.
The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use.
At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board
In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors.
Panel Wall panel 2.4m*0.6m 2400 600
One hand/ Total weight

Item Item name Item name Number of items Symettry Size Thickness Weight Chamfer two hand of parts
α β Total mm /kg
240x45mm timber I-Joist
1 flange (soft wood) I joist 2 180 180 360 2400 240 12.24 None two hand 24.48
2 240*44mm SW battens C16 C16 2 180 180 360 600 44 38.016 None two hand 76.03
3 Screw Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.03
4 11mm 2440x1220 OSB3 OSB sheathing board 1 180 180 360 2400 18 15.552 None two person 15.55
4a 0.00
5 Nail fixings Nail fixings 60 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 one hand 0.06
38x50mm treated SW
10 battens Cladding fixing batten(1) 2 180 180 360 2400 1 0.00456 None Two hand 0.01
11 Screw Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.03

38x50mm treated SW
12 battens Cladding fixing batten (2) 2 180 180 360 600 1 0.018 None Two hand 0.04
13 Screw Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.03
14 Western Red Cedar Cladding 4 180 180 360 2400 19 1.628832 None Two hand 6.52
15 Screw Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.03
6 Rockwool Insulation 2 180 180 360 600 240 <2.5 None Two hand
7 Pro Clima Intello Plus Airtightness membrane 1 360 90 450 2400 1 0.05 None Two person 0.05
One hand
8 Tacks Tacks 60 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 None (multiples) 0.06
9 Tape Tape 2 180 180 360 2400 1 0 None Two hand 0.00
44x69mm SW battens Internal battens ( vertical ) 2 180 180 360 2400 38 2.736 None Two hand 5.47
44x69mm SW battens Internal battens (horizontal ) 2 180 180 360 500 38 0.57 None Two hand 1.14
Plasterboard Plasterboard 1 180 180 360 2400 12.5 24.048 None two person 24.05
Total 207 122.92
Timber Frame - Factory Assembly Appendix G1 - pg 234

Manual Insertion time Total operation Figures for Total Part

Item Item name Number of items handling code Handling time per item Manual Insertion code per item time min. parts efficiency (Ea)
s s Description 0.01
1 I joist 2 95 4 00 1.5 , 1 Place in to frame
2 C16 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Place along bottom and top of frame
3 Screw 16 10 1.5 92 5 104 0 Screw timber and I joist together
4 OSB sheathing board 1 95 4 00 1.5 5.5 0 Add
4a
Nail fixings are inserted from above.

5 Nail fixings 60 10 1.5 91 7 510 0 Easy clearance
10 Cladding fixing batten(1) 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 1 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over (5-6)
12 Cladding fixing batten (2) 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over
14 Cladding 4 95 4 00 1.5 22 1 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over
6 Insulation 2 91 3 01 2.5 11 1 Turn over and insert
7 Airtightness membrane 1 92 2 06 5.5 7.5 1 Lay over
Staple fixings are inserted from

8 Tacks 60 11 1.8 91 7 528 0 above . Easy clear ance
9 Tape 2 92 1.8 91 7 17.6 0 Fix membrane onsite
Internal battens ( vertical ) 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 1 Fix to membrane and Joist
Internal battens (horizontal ) 2
Plasterboard 1 95 4 00 1.5 5.5 1 Fix to battens

Total 202 1550.6 5

Acquisition times for large size of components ( booth royd pg 119) Custom assembly
Average
distance to Total
location of acquisition
Item Item name Number of items parts Code Size of largest part Weight Times time Total weight
m
1 I joist 2 >3 50 2400 12.24 12.41 24.82 12.24
2 C16 2 >3 50 600mm 38.016 12.41 24.82 38.016
3 Screw 16 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
4 OSB sheathing board 1 >3 50 2400 15.552 40.8 40.8 15.552
5 Nail fixings 60 >3 04 5 0.001 0.84 50.4 0.001

6 Lift and turn over board >3 53 2400 65.811 50.07 0 <2.5
7 Insulation 2 >3 50 2400 <2.5 14.41 28.82 0.05
8 Airtightness membrane 1 >3 50 2400 0.05 12.41 12.41 0.001
9 Tacks 60 >3 04 15 0.001 0.84 50.4 0
10 Cladding fixing batten(1) 2 >3 50 2400 0.00456 12.41 24.82 0.00456
11 Screw 16 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
12 Cladding fixing batten (2) 2 >3 50 600 0.018 12.41 24.82 0.018
13 Screw 16 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
14 Cladding 8 >3 50 2400 1.628832 12.41 99.28 1.628832
15 Screw 32 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 26.88 0.002
Total 184.78 448.59 67.519392

Panel Floor panel 4200m*600m 4200 600
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Size Thickness Weight Chamfer Handling wieght
α β total mm
1 I joist 2 180 180 360 4200 240 21.42 None Two handed 42.84
2 C16 2 180 180 360 600 38 8.208 None Two handed 16.42
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None One handed 0.03
4 OSB sheathing board 5 180 180 360 4200 18 27.216 None Two handed 136.08
5 Nail fixings 96 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 None One handed 0.10
6 Insulation 2 180 180 360 2400 240 <2.5 None Two handed
7 OSB sheathing board 5 180 180 360 2400 18 0.001 None Two handed 0.01
8 Tacks 96 360 0 360 60 <2 0.0005 None One handed 0.05
panel Floor panel 195.52
Manual Insertion time Total operation Figures for

Item Item name Number of items handling code Handling time per item Manual Insertion code per item time min. parts Description
s s
1 I joist 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 1 Place in to frame

3 Screw 16 10 1.5 92 5 104 0 Fix c16 timbers in place
Nail fixings are inserted from above .

5 Nail fixings 96 10 1.5 91 7 816 0 Easy clear ance

8 Tacks 96 11 1.8 91 7 844.8 0 above. Easy clearance
Total 224 1852.8 2
Acquisition times for large size of components Custom assembly
Average
distance to Total
Item Item name Number of items parts Code Size of largest part Weight Times time Total weight
m in
1 I joist 2 >3 50 >65 21.42 12.41 24.82 42.84
2 C16 2 >3 50 >65 0.25992 12.41 24.82 0.51984
3 Screw 16 >3 04 <4 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.032
4 OSB sheathing board 5 >3 50 >65 27.216 12.41 62.05 136.08
5 Nail fixings 96 >3 04 <4 0.001 0.84 80.64 0.096
6 Lift and turn over board 1 >3 53 >65 205.77 50.07 50.07 179.56784
7 Insulation 2 >3 50 >65 <2.5 14.41 28.82 2.5
8 Airtightness membrane 5 >3 50 >65 0.001 50.07 250.35 0.005 kg

9 Tacks 96 >3 04 <4 0.0005 0.84 80.64 0.048
Total 154.3 615.65 182.12084

Panel Roof panel 2177*600 2177 600
Total weight
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Size Thickness Weight Chamfer Handling of parts
α β total mm
1 I joist (90*sw90) 2 180 180 360 2177 240 11.1027 None No 22.21
2 C16 2 180 180 360 600 38 3.804 None No 7.61
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.03
4 OSB sheathing board 2 180 180 360 2177 18 14.10696 None No 28.21
Nail fixings 56 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 None No 0.06
5 Insulation 2 180 180 360 2177 240 <2.5 None No
6 Airtightness membrane 1 360 90 450 2177 1 0.05 None No 0.05

7 Tacks 56 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 None No 0.06
14 Cladding fixing batten(1) 2 180 180 360 2177 1 0.00293895 None Two hand 0.01
3 Screw 8 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.02
15 Cladding fixing batten (2) 2 180 180 360 600 1 0.00081 None Two hand 0.00
3 Screw 8 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.02
16 Cladding 4 180 180 360 2177 19 1.47748636 None Two hand 5.91
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.03
58.22
Manual Insertion time Total operation Figures for

Item name Number of items handling code Handling time per item Manual Insertion code per item time min. parts Description
s s
4 OSB sheathing board 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Add
Nail fixings are inserted from above .

5 Nail fixings 56 10 1.5 91 7 476 0 Easy clear ance
7 Airtightness membrane 1 95 4 00 1.5 5.5 0 Add

8 Tacks 56 11 1.8 91 7 492.8 0 above . Easy clear ance
14 Cladding fixing batten(1) 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 1 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over
15 Cladding fixing batten (2) 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over

Total 137 1122.3 2


Average
distance to Total
Item Item name Number of parts parts Code Size of largest part Weight Times time Total weight
m
1 I joist 2 >65in 50 >65 11.10 12.41 24.82 22.2054
2 C16 2 >65in 50 >65 3.80 12.41 24.82 7.6080
3 Screw 16 >65in 04 small part 0.00 0.84 13.44 0.0320
4 OSB sheathing board 2 >65in 50 >65 14.11 12.41 24.82 28.2139
5 Nail fixings 56 >65in 04 small part 0.00 0.84 47.04 0.0560
6 Lift and turn over board 1 >65in 53 >65 50.07 50.07 0.0000
7 Insulation 2 >65in 50 600 <2.5 14.41 28.82 2.0000
8 Airtightness membrane 1 >65in 50 2400 0.05 12.41 12.41 0.0500 kg

9 Tacks 56 >65in 04 small part 0.00 0.84 47.04 0.0560
10 Plasterboard 1 >65in 50 0.00 0.0029
10 cladding fixing batten(1) 1 >65in 50 600mm 0.00 12.41 12.41 0.0020

11 cladding fixing batten (2) 1 >65in 50 2400 0.00 12.41 12.41 0.0020
12 cladding 36 >65in 50 0.00 0.0720
Total 116.64 273.28 83.9465
Upper floor panel
Panel 4.2m*0.6m 4200 600

Number of One hand /two Total weight

Item Item name items Symettry Size Thickness Weight Chamfer hand of parts
α β Total mm /kg
1 I joist (90*sw90) 2 180 180 360 4200 240 21.42 None two hand 42.84
2 C16 2 180 180 360 600 44 66.528 None two hand 133.06
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.03
4 OSB sheathing board 5 180 180 360 4200 18 27.216 None two person 136.08
5 Nail fixings 60 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 one hand 0.06
6 Insulation 2 180 180 360 4200 240 <2.5 None Two hand
8 Tacks 60 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 One hand (multiples) 0.06
9 Plasterboard 2 180 180 360 4200 12.5 18.9 None two hand 37.80
486.01
Total Part
Number of Manual Insertion time Total Figures for efficiency
Item Item name items handling code Handling time per item Manual Insertion code per item operation time min. parts (Ea)
Nail fixings are inserted from above.

5 Nail fixings 60 10 1.5 91 7 510 0 Easy clearance
Turn over and insert. Space is slightly
constrined and enclosed but the
6 Insulation 2 91 3 01 2.5 11 1 insulation is flexible.
8 Tacks 60 10 1.5 92 5 390 0 Tacks are fitted from above
9 Plasterboard 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Sealed using glue

Total 87 674.5 2

Acquisition times for large size of components ( booth royd pg 119) Custom assembly
Average
distance to Total
Number of location of acquisition
Item Item name items parts Code Size of largest part Weight Times time Total weight
m
1 I joist 2 >3 50 2400 21.42 12.41 24.82 21.42
2 C16 2 >3 50 600mm 66.528 12.41 24.82 66.528
3 Screw 16 1.5 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
4 OSB sheathing board 5 >3 50 2400 27.216 40.8 204 27.216

5 Nail fixings 60 04 5 0.001 0.84 50.4 0.001
6 Lift and turn over board 0 53 2400 115.167 50.07 0

7 Insulation 2 >3 50 2400 <2.5 14.41 28.82 <2.5

8 Tacks 60 04 15 0.001 0.84 50.4 0.001
9 Plasterboard 2 >3 50 2400 18.9 12.41 24.82 18.9
Total 157.44 483.57

Assembly of a panel
The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres.
Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed.
The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached.
The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use.
At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board
In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors.
Wall panel
Panel 2.4m*1.2m 2400 1200
One hand
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer /two hand total weight of parts
α β total mm /kg
1 I joist (90*sw90) 3 180 180 360 2400 240 12.24 None Two hand 36.72
2 C16 2 180 180 360 1200 38 6.5664 None Two hand 13.1328
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 one hand 0.032
4 OSB sheathing board 1 180 180 360 2400 18 15.552 None Two person 15.552
5 Nail fixings 96 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 One hand 0.096

Cladding fixing
10 batten(1) 3 180 180 360 2400 38 2.736 None Two hand 8.208
11 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 One hand 0.032

Cladding fixing batten
12 (2) 2 180 180 360 1200 38 0.06156 None Two hand 0.12312
13 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 One hand 0.032
14 Cladding 8 180 180 360 2400 19 1.628832 None Two hand 13.030656
15 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 One hand 0.032
6 Insulation 4 180 180 360 600 240 <2.5 None Two hand
Airtightness
7 membrane 1 360 90 450 2400 1 0.05 None Two person 0.05
8 Tacks 96 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 One hand (multiples) 0.096
9 Tape 180 180 360 2400 1 0 None Two hand 0

Internal battens (
vertical ) 2 180 180 360 2400 38 2.736 Two hand 5.472
Internal battens
(horizontal) 2 180 180 360 1100 38 1.254 Two hand
Plasterboard 1 180 180 360 2400 12.5 24.048 Two person 24.048
Total 280 653 38.844792

Total
Manual Handling time per Manual Insertion time operation Figures for
Item Item name Number of items handling code item Insertion code per item time min. parts Total Part efficiency (Ea)
1 I joist (90*sw90) 3 95 4 00 1.5 16.5 1 Place in to frame
Place along bottom and top of

2 C16 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 frame
Nail fixings are inserted from

5 Nail fixings 96 10 1.5 91 7 816 0 above . Easy clear ance
Cladding fixing
10 batten(1) 3 95 4 00 1.5 16.5 1 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over

Cladding fixing batten
12 (2) 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Fix to the OSB prior to turning over
Turn over and insert. Must be

pushed into frame. If solid, this
6 Insulation 4 91 3 01 2.5 22 1 will be more difficult
Airtightness
7 membrane 1 92 2 06 5.5 7.5 1 Lay over

8 Tacks 96 11 1.8 91 7 844.8 0 above . Easy clear ance
9 Tape 0 92 1.8 91 7 0 1 Fix membrane

Internal battens (
vertical ) 4 95 4 00 1.5 22 1 Fix to membrane and Joist
Plasterboard 1 95 4 00 1.5 5.5 1 Fix to battens

Total 280 2210.8 6

average
distancew to total
location of size of largest acquisition
Item Item name Number of items parts Code part weight times time Weight
m /kg
1 I joist 3 >3 50 2400 12.24 12.41 37.23 12.24
2 C16 2 >3 50 1200 6.5664 12.41 24.82 6.5664
3 Screw 16 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
5 Lift nail
andfixings
turn over 96 >3 04 5 0.001 0.84 80.64 0.001
6 board >3 53 2400 34.3614 50.07 0 <2.5
7 insulation
airtightness 4 >3 50 600 <2.5 14.41 57.64 0.05
8 membrane 1 >3 50 2400 0.05 12.41 12.41 0.001
9 tacksfixing
cladding 96 >3 04 15 0.001 0.84 80.64 0
10 batten(1) 0 >3 50 2400 2.736 12.41 0 2.736
11 claddingScrew
fixing batten 16 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
12 (2) 3 >3 50 1200 0.06156 12.41 37.23 0.06156
13 Screw 16 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.002
14 cladding 16 >3 50 2400 1.628832 12.41 198.56 1.628832
15 Screw 64 >3 04 5 0.002 0.84 53.76 0.002
Total 664.05 0

Floor panel
Panel 2.0m*1.2m 4200 1200
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer weight
α β total mm
1 I joist 3 180 180 360 4200 240 21.42 64.26
2 C16 2 180 180 360 1200 38 1.03968 2.07936
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None One handed 0.032
4 OSB sheathing board 2 180 180 360 2400 18 31.104 62.208

5 nail fixings 150 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None One handed 0.3
7 insulation 4 360 90 450 240 240 <2.5
9 tacks 150 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 0.15
panel Floor panel 191.23736
Total
Item Item name Number of items handling code item Insertion code per item time min. parts Description
s s
1 I joist 3 95 4 00 1.5 16.5 1 Place in to frame
2 C16 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 frame

5 Nail fixings 150 10 1.5 91 7 1275 0 above . Easy clear ance

8 Tacks 150 11 1.8 91 7 1320 0 above . Easy clear ance
Total 327 2759.5 2
average
distance to
location of size of largest
Item Item name Number of items parts Code part weight times total time
m
1 I joist 3 >3 50 >65in 21.42 12.41 37.23 64.26
2 C16 2 >3 50 >65in 0.25992 12.41 24.82 0.51984
Screw 16 >3 04 0.002 0.84 13.44 0.032
3 OSB sheathing board 1 >3 50 >65in 31.104 12.41 12.41 31.104
nail fixings 150 >3 04 0.002 0.84 126 0.3
Lift and turn over
board >3 53 >65in 213.9 50.07 0
4 insulation 4 >3 50 600 <2.5 14.41 57.64 2.5
airtightness
5 membrane 1 >3 50 2400 31.104 50.07 50.07 31.104
6 tacks 150 >3 04 5 0.001 0.84 126 0.15
Total 154.3 447.61

Panel Roof panel 4.2*1.2 2177 1200
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer total weight of parts
α β total mm
1 I joist (90*sw90) 3 180 180 360 2177 240 11.1027 33.3081

2 C16 2 180 180 360 1200 38 1.03968 2.07936
3 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.032
5 nail fixings 67.54 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 0.06754
6 insulation 4 180 180 360 600 240
airtightness
7 membrane 2 360 90 450 2400 1 0.05 0.1
8 tacks 67.54 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 0.06754
cladding fixing
9 batten(1) 4 180 180 360 2177 1 0.00293895 None Two hand 0.0117558
10 Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.032
cladding fixing batten
11 (2) 2 180 180 360 1200 1 0.00162 None Two hand 0.00324
12 Screw 8 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.016
13 cladding 8 180 180 360 2177 19 1.47748636 None Two hand 11.81989088
14 Screw 32 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 None No 0.064
109.8094267
Total
Item name Number of items handling code item Insertion code per item time min. parts Description
s s
2 C16 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Place along bottom and top of
4 OSB sheathing board 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Add

5 nail fixings 67.54 10 1.5 91 7 574.09 0 above . Easy clear ance
6 insulation 4 91 3 01 2.5 22 1 Turn over and insert
airtightness
7 membrane 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 Add
8 tacks 67.54 11 1.8 91 7 594.352 0 above . Easy clear ance
cladding fixing
13 batten(1)
14 (2)
15 cladding
Total 164.08 1343.942 2


average
distance to total
location of size of largest acquisiyion
Item Item name Number of parts parts Code part weight times time total weight
m
1 I joist 3 1.5 >65in 12.41 37.23 48.96
2 C16 2 1.5 >65in 12.41 24.82 22.824
3 Screw 16 1.5 0.84 13.44 0.032
4 OSB sheathing board 2 1.5 >65in 12.41 24.82 93.312
5 nail fixings 67.54 1.5 0.84 56.7336
Lift and turn over
6 board 1 >65in 50.07 50.07 0.05
7 insulation 4 1.5 600 14.41 28.82 0.056
airtightness
8 membrane 2 1.5 2400 14.41 28.82 0 165.234
9 tacks 67.54 1.5 0.84 56.7336
cladding fixing
10 batten(1) >65in
3 Screw 8 1.5 0.84 6.72 0.032
11 (2) >65in
3 Screw 32 1.5 0.84 26.88 0.032
12 cladding >65in
3 Screw 0 1.5 0.84 0 0.032
Total 118.64 321.4872
Wall panel
Panel 2.4m*1.2m 2400 1200

One hand
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer /two hand total weight of parts
α β total mm /kg
1 I joist (90*sw90) 3 180 180 360 2400 240 12.24 None two hand 36.72
2 C16 2 180 180 360 1200 38 6.5664 None two hand 13.1328
Screw 16 360 0 360 60 5 0.002 0.032
nail fixings 96 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 one hand 0.096
4 insulation 4 180 180 360 600 240 <2.5 None Two hand
6 tacks 96 360 0 360 60 <2 0.001 One hand (multiples) 0.096
12 Plasterboard 1200 180 180 360 1200 12.5 0 None two hand
Total
Manual Handling time Manual Insertion time operation Figures for
Item Item name Number of items handling code per item Insertion code per item time min. parts Total Part efficiency (Ea)

2 C16 2 95 4 00 1.5 11 0 frame
Screw 16 10 1.5 92 5 104 0 Fix c16 timbers in place

nail fixings 96 10 1.5 91 7 816 0 above . Easy clear ance
Turn over and insert. Must be
pushed into frame. If solid, this
4 insulation 4 91 3 01 2.5 22 1 will be more difficult
OSB sheathing board 1 180 95 4 00 1.5 990 0 Add
Tacks 96 360 10 1.5 92 5 2340 0 Tacks are fitted from above
Plasterboard 1200 95 4 00 1.5 6600 0 Sealed using glue

Total 122 975 2

average
distancew to total
location of size of largest acquisition
Item Item name Number of items parts Code part weight times time
m
1 I joist 3 1.5 >65in 12.24 12.41
2 C16 2 1.5 >65in 6.5664 12.41
Screw 16 1.5 0.002 1.11
3 OSB sheathing board 1 1.5 >65in 15.552 12.41

Lift and turn over
board >65in 50.07
4 insulation 4 1.5 <2.5
airtightness
3 membrane 1 1.5 >65in 15.552 12.41
6 tacks 96 1.5 0.001 1.11
9 Plasterboard 1 180 >3 50 2400 None 12.41 2233.8
Total 101.93

Summary
Lifting panels into place Summary 600 1200 1800 2400
on site mins 1386.0 2903.0 1893.0 1784.0
hours 23.1 48.4 31.6 29.7
days 2.9 6.0 3.9 3.7
Persons 4 2 2 2
total labour (s) 332640.00 348360.00 227160.00 214080.00
sealing rate 10000 mm/min

Sealing time Width wall floor /ceiling roof
600 600 2400 4200 2177
1200 1200 2400 4200 2177
1800 1800 2400 4200 2177
2400 2400 2400 4200 2177
number of panels
Sealing Wall length floor/ceiling length roof length wall floor roof roof gable upper floorceiling internal wallwall floor roof roof gable upper floorceiling internal wall
Sealing time/ Sealing time/ Sealing
Sealing length mins Sealing length mins Sealing length time/
600 4800 0.48 8400 0.84 4354 0.4354 76 12 24 14 12 12 37 36.48 10.08 10.4496 6.72 10.08 10.08 17.76 101.6496
1200 4800 0.48 8400 0.84 4354 0.4354 40 6 12 8 6 6 20 19.2 5.04 5.2248 3.84 5.04 5.04 9.6 52.9848
1800 4800 0.48 8400 0.84 4354 0.4354 28 4 8 6 4 4 14 13.44 3.36 3.4832 2.88 3.36 3.36 6.72 36.6032
2400 4800 0.48 8400 0.84 4354 0.4354 20 3 6 4 3 3 11 9.6 2.52 2.6124 1.92 2.52 2.52 5.28 26.9724
setup fixing etc /s Sealing total /s hours

600 332640.00 6098.976 338738.98 94.09416 3.09927
1200 348360.00 3179.088 351539.09 97.64974667 6.158302
1800 227160.00 2196.192 229356.19 63.71005333 4.020007
2400 214080.00 1618.344 215698.34 59.91620667 3.772859
Summary Person hours for assembling house on site

hours
Lifting panels
Sealing
into place
panelson site Total
600 3.33E+05 3.66E+05 6.99E+05
1200 3.48E+05 1.91E+05 5.39E+05
1800 2.27E+05 1.32E+05 3.59E+05
2400 2.14E+05 9.71E+04 3.11E+05
Timber Frame - Site Assembly Appendix G4 - pg 250

Blown Insulation EM430-400V/9.5kW http://www.warmcel.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EM400-en.pdf

Double power input 2 Double power input
Voltage 120 V Voltage 0 V
Amp 14 Amp Amp 0 Amp
Power 3.36 kW Power 9.5 kW
Blowing rate 952 kg/hr 35.26 m3/hr Blowing rate 12150 kg/hr 450 m3/hr
Hopper capacity 0.35 m3 Hopper capacity 0.35 m3
Wall Floor Roof ceiling Wall Floor Roof ceiling
setting up time 2.5 2.5 5 3 setting up time 2.5 2.5 5 3
Sealing 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Sealing 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
total 5 5 7.5 5.5 total 5 5 7.5 5.5
Generic house Generic house
number of panels number of panels
Wall Floor Roof Roof gable Upper floor Ceiling Volume mass Wall Floor Roof ceiling Volume mass
600 76.00 12.00 23.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 17.57 474.52 600.00 38.00 11.00 24.00 24.00 18.84 508.60
1200 36.00 6.00 11.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 17.26 466.06 1200.00 20.00 6.00 12.00 12.00 19.44 524.93
1800 24.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 17.34 468.08 1800.00 15.00 5.00 9.00 9.00 22.78 615.04
2400 16.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 16.63 449.13 2400.00 10.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 19.44 524.93
2400 4200 2177 1348.526564 4200 m3 total m3
filling hopper Volume number of fills time per fill filling hopper Volume number of time
fills per fill
600 17.6 50.21 0.00 600 18.84 53.82 0.00
1200 17.3 49.32 0.00 1200 19.44 55.55 0.00
1800 17.3 49.53 0.00 1800 22.78 65.08 0.00
2400 16.6 47.53 0.00 2400 19.44 55.55 0.00
set up time /hr set up time /hr

Wall Floor Roof ceiling total Wall Floor Roof ceiling total
600 0.053 0.008 0.016 0.011 0.088 600 0.026 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.000
1200 0.050 0.008 0.015 0.011 0.085 1200 0.028 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.067
1800 0.050 0.008 0.015 0.013 0.085 1800 0.031 0.010 0.019 0.019 0.069
2400 0.044 0.008 0.014 0.011 0.078 2400 0.028 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.079
sealing time /hr sealing time /hr

Wall Floor Roof ceiling total Wall Floor Roof ceiling total
600 0.053 0.008 0.016 0.011 0.088 600 0.026 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.000
1200 0.050 0.008 0.015 0.011 0.085 1200 0.028 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.067
1800 0.050 0.008 0.015 0.013 0.085 1800 0.031 0.010 0.019 0.019 0.069
2400 0.044 0.008 0.014 0.011 0.078 2400 0.028 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.079
Pumping time /hr fill time set up time /hr sealing time /hr Total time Total power kW/hr Pumping time /hr fill time set up timesealing
/hr timeTotal
/hr time Total power kW/hr
600 0.50 0.21 0.088 0.088 0.884 1.67 600 0.04 0.22 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.40
1200 0.490 0.21 0.085 0.085 0.864 1.64 1200 0.04 0.23 0.067 0.067 0.266 0.41
1800 0.492 0.21 0.085 0.085 0.869 1.65 1800 0.05 0.27 0.069 0.069 0.409 0.48
2400 0.472 0.20 0.078 0.078 0.825 1.59 2400 0.04 0.23 0.079 0.079 0.461 0.41

Crane manoevering
Average panel weight
(closed) kg No of panels
600 158 600 147
1200 49 1200 69
1800 69 1800 45
2400 6124120 2400 30
Distance moved
length
(Average distance to middle of the building) 7000
Height (roof level) 4800
Diagonal 8487.6
Half diagonal 4243.8
Lifting force Nm MNm

600 9.68E+05 968.19
1200 1.40E+05 140.05
1800 1.29E+05 129.50
2400 7.64E+09 7640959.52

Assembly of fabric Assembly of a panel

Onsite constrution of the building requires the following: The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres.
1) Foundations are already inplace and initial ground works have been completed. Electricity and ground water supply are ready to be connected to. Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed.
2) Steel frame is in place on the foundations and levelled. Frame is lifted into place using crane. The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached (could be on site or in the factory) .
3) Install DPM. The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use.
4) Floor panel lifted into position. Depending on size either using crane or hand balling.
5) Sole plate fixed to floor panels. Sole plate levelled. At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board
6) Wall panels, lifted into position. Panel positioned using props. Wall panels surveyed and levelled, then fixed together using nails or screw. Panels fixed to floor and to each other. Ground floof completed. In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors.
7) Headbinder attached to ground floor panels
8) Install floor hangers, (done in factory?)
9) Install ceiling panels.
10) Repeat 6-9 for first floor panels and ceiling.
11) Install roof trusses at spacing of 600mm
12)Install roof panels
13)Install cladding
Assembly times based on component properties Assembly times based on component properties
Wall panel
Panel Building fabric 2400 600 Panel 2.4m*1.2m 2400 1200
Symettry Size Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand total weight of parts
Item Item name Number of items α β total mm /kg total weight of parts α β total mm /kg
Steel frame 16 360 360 720 4200 240 1000 Crane 16000 Steel frame 16 360 360 720 4200 240 1000 Crane 16000
DPM 1 90 180 270 4200 2 268128 2 hands 268128 DPM 1 90 180 270 4200 2 268128 2 hands 268128
Floor panel 12.00 360 180 540 600 240 1.83E-06 2persons 2.1906E-05 Floor panel 6.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! Crane #REF!
Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 131.328 Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Wall panels 75.00 360 360 720 600 240 1.17E-05 2persons 0.000878489 Wall panels 40.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! 2persons #REF!
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Upperfloor panels 12.00 360 180 540 600 240 1.75E-06 2persons 2.09569E-05 Upperfloor panels 12.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF!
Roof gable 14.00 360 360 720 1.87E-06 Roof gable 7.00 360 180 540 2400 240 #REF! Crane #REF!
Ceiling panels 12.00 360 180 540 600 240 1.75E-06 2persons 2.09569E-05 Ceiling panels 12.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF!
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 Two hands 131.328
Roof trusses 12 360 360 720 4200 90 0 Crane 0 Roof trusses 12 360 360 720 4200 90 0 Crane 0
Roof panels 22 360 360 720 600 240 3.17E-06 Crane 6.97139E-05 Roof panels 12.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! Crane #REF!
Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 2.0216 Two hands 0 Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 Two hands 0
Glulam portal 12 180 180 360 5000 240 65 Crane 780 glulam portal
Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per Total Part efficiency Manual handling Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per
Item Item name Number of items Manual handling code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts (Ea) Item Item name Number of items code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts Total Part efficiency (Ea)
s s Description 0.016666667 s s Description 0.000466019
Installed by professional contractors. Assumed to

be a simple box frame with cross members at the
Steel frame 16 99 9 37 7 256 16 first floor level Steel frame 16 99 9 craning 7 256 16
Installed below panels

DPM 1 99 9 9 1 DPM 1 92 2 2 1
Panels hand balled into position. No restriction
of access for insertion
Floor panel 12 99 9 38 6 180 1 Floor panel 5 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 6437.5 1
Placed on steel frame. No restriction in access

Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 4
Hand balled into position. No restricted access in
general. Parts added but not secured. Then
when all parts in position They are surveyed and
Wall panels 76 99 9 6 6.5 1178 4 securded Wall panels 32 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 41200 4
Placed and fixed to top of wall panels . No

restriction in access
Head binder 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Head binder 10 99 9 38 6 150 4
Upperfloor panels 12 99 9 48 8.5 210 1 secured. Upperfloor panels 5 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 6437.5 4
secured.
Roof gable 14 99 9 38 6 210 2 Roof gable 6 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 7725 2
Ceiling panels 12 99 9 38 6 180 1 secured. Ceiling panels 5 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 6437.5 1
Crane into place, secured using nail pates.

Roof trusses 12 99 9 38 6 180 12 Roof trusses 12 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 15450 12
Craned into position because of working at
Roof panels 24 99 9 38 6 360 2 height. Roof panels 10 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 12875 2
0 0
Cladding 12 94 20 38 15 420 Cladding 16 94 3 48
Glulam portal 12 glulam portal 0
Number of lifting Connecting time per Distance to move Number of lifting connecting time per distance to move
600 weight point lifting point Connect / disconnect (average) Speed Time t move Total per piece Total (all pieces) Time (minutes) weight point lifting point connect/ disconnect (average) speed time t move total per piece total (all pieces) time (minutes)
Floor panel 12.00 59.78 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 3360 56 Floor panel 6.00 1.22E+02 5 240 1200 7000 80 87.5 2487.5 14925 249
Wall panels 75.00 36.33 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 21000 350 Wall panels 40.00 6.78E+01 3 240 720 7000 80 87.5 1527.5 61100 1019
Upper floor 12.00 57.88 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 3360 56 Ceiling panels 12.00 9.20E+01 4 240 960 7000 80 87.5 2007.5 24090 402
Ceiling panels 12.00 50.27 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 3360 56 Upperfloor panels 12.00 9.20E+01 4 240 960 7000 80 87.5 2007.5 24090 402
Roof gable 10.00 23.75 1 240 240 7000 100 70 550 5500 92 roof gable 7.00 3.66E+01 2 240 480 7000 80 87.5 1047.5 7332.5 123
Roof panels 22 33.66 2 240 480 7000 100 70 1030 22660 378 Roof panels 12 6.29E+01 3 240 720 7000 80 87.5 1527.5 18330 306
83120 1386 173957.5 2900
155.00 total per building 1386 mins total per building 2903
total per building 23.10 hours total per building 48.38333333
2.89 days 6.047916667
crane cost 1342 per day crane cost 1342

8116.304167
kg lbs
1 0.45 0.0625 1.5875 0.15875
What IS this data?
Site Assembly Appendix G2 - pg 253

Assembly of a panel Assembly of a panel

The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres. The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres.
Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed. Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed.
The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached (could be on site or in the factory) . The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached (could be on site or in the factory) .
The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use. The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use.
At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board
In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors. In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors.
Wall panel Wall panel
Panel 2.4m*1.8m 2400 1800 Panel 2.4m*1.8m 2400 2400
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand total weight of parts Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand total weight
α β total mm /kg α β total mm /kg
Floor panel 4.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! Crane #REF! Floor panel 3 360 180 540 1200 240 293.5143024 Crane 880.5429072
Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328 Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Wall panels 28.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! 2persons #REF! Wall panels 20 360 180 540 1200 240 1553.054899 2persons 31061.09798
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Upperfloor panels 4.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF! Upperfloor panels 3 360 360 720 600 240 148.3838038 2persons 445.1514113
Roof gable 5.00 360 180 540 2400 240 #REF! Crane #REF! Roof gable 4 360 180 540 2400 240 1.86553E-06 Crane 7.46213E-06
Ceiling panels 4.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF! Ceiling panels 3 360 360 720 600 240 148.3838038 2persons 445.1514113
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 Two hands 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 Two hands 131.328
Roof trusses 90 360 360 720 4200 90 #REF! Crane #REF! Roof trusses 12 360 360 720 4200 90 0 Crane 0
Roof panels 4.00 360 360 720 600 240 1.55E+02 Crane 621.2219161 Roof panels 6 360 360 720 600 240 155.305479 Crane 931.8328741
Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 Two hands 0 Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 Two hands 0
glulam portal glulam portal
Manual handling Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per Manual handling Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per
Item Item name Number of items code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts Total Part efficiency (Ea) Item Item name Number of items code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts
s s Description 0.002005013 s s Description

Steel frame 1 99 9 craning 7 16 16 first floor level Steel frame 1 99 9 craning 7 16 Installed by professional
16 contractors. Assumed to be a simple box frame with cross members at the first floor level
DPM 1 92 2 2 1 Installed below panels DPM 1 92 2 2 1 Installed below panels

Floor panel 3 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1496.25 1 of access for insertion Floor panel 18 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 8977.5 Panels hand
1 balled into position. No restriction of access for insertion
Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Placed on steel frame. No restriction in access Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Placed on steel frame. No restriction in access

Wall panels 20 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 9975 4 securded Wall panels 18 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled
8977.5
into position. No restricted access in general.
4 Parts added but not secured. Then when all parts in position They are surveyed and securded

Head binder 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 restriction in access Head binder 10 99 9 38 6 150 Placed
1 and fixed to top of wall panels . No restriction in access

Upperfloor panels 3 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1496.25 1 secured. Upperfloor panels 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled5985
into position. No restricted access in 1general. Parts added but not secured. Then when all parts in position They are surveyed and secured.

Roof gable 4 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1995 2 secured. Roof gable 7 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled
3491.25

Ceiling panels 3 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1496.25 1 secured. Ceiling panels 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled5985

Roof trusses 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 5985 12 Crane into place, secured using nail pates. Roof trusses 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 5985 12 Crane into place, secured using nail pates.

Roof panels 6 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 2992.5 2 height. Roof panels 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 5985 2 Craned into position because of working at height.
0 0
Cladding 20 94 3 Cladding 20 94 3
glulam portal 0 glulam portal 0
Number of lifting connecting time per distance to move Number of lifting connecting time per distance to move
weight point lifting point connect/ disconnect (average) speed time t move total per piece total (all pieces) time (minutes) weight point lifting point connect/ disconnect (average) speed time t move
Floor panel 3 1.79E+02 8 240 1920 7000 60 116.6666667 3956.666667 11870 198 Floor panel 3 213.60 9 240 2160 7000 50 140
Wall panels 20 9.93E+01 4 240 960 7000 60 116.6666667 2036.666667 40733.33333 679 Wall panels 10 130.74 6 240 1440 7000 50 140
Ceiling panels 3 1.34E+02 6 240 1440 7000 60 116.6666667 2996.666667 8990 150 Ceiling panels 9 175.58 8 240 1920 7000 50 140
Upperfloor panels 3 1.34E+02 6 240 1440 7000 60 116.6666667 2996.666667 8990 150 Ceiling panels 175.58 8 240 1920 7000 50 140
roof gable 4 6.58E+01 3 240 720 7000 60 116.6666667 1556.666667 6226.666667 104 Roof gable 81.34 4 240 960 7000 50 140
Roof trusses 12 100 4 240 960 7000 60 116.6666667 2036.666667 24440 408 Roof trusses 6 100 4 240 960 7000 50 140
Roof panels 6 9.22E+01 4 240 960 7000 60 116.6666667 2036.666667 12220 204 Roof panels 6 108.20 5 240 1200 7000 50 140
mins total per building 1893 mins total per building
mins (check) total per building 31.55 hours total per building
hours 3.94375 days
per day crane cost 1342 per day crane cost
5292.5125

Assembly of fabric Assembly of a panel

Onsite constrution of the building requires the following: The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres.
1) Foundations are already inplace and initial ground works have been completed. Electricity and ground water supply are ready to be connected to. Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed.
2) Steel frame is in place on the foundations and levelled. Frame is lifted into place using crane. The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached (could be on site or in the factory) .
3) Install DPM. The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use.
4) Floor panel lifted into position. Depending on size either using crane or hand balling.
5) Sole plate fixed to floor panels. Sole plate levelled. At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board
6) Wall panels, lifted into position. Panel positioned using props. Wall panels surveyed and levelled, then fixed together using nails or screw. Panels fixed to floor and to each other. Ground floof completed. In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors.
7) Headbinder attached to ground floor panels
8) Install floor hangers, (done in factory?)
9) Install ceiling panels.
10) Repeat 6-9 for first floor panels and ceiling.
11) Install roof trusses at spacing of 600mm
12)Install roof panels
13)Install cladding
Wall panel
Panel Building fabric 2400 600 Panel 2.4m*1.2m 2400 1200
Symettry Size Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand total weight of parts
Item Item name Number of items α β total mm /kg total weight of parts α β total mm /kg
Floor panel 12.00 360 180 540 600 240 1.83E-06 2persons 2.1906E-05 Floor panel 6.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! Crane #REF!
Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 131.328 Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Wall panels 75.00 360 360 720 600 240 1.17E-05 2persons 0.000878489 Wall panels 40.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! 2persons #REF!
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Upperfloor panels 12.00 360 180 540 600 240 1.75E-06 2persons 2.09569E-05 Upperfloor panels 12.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF!
Roof gable 14.00 360 360 720 1.87E-06 Roof gable 7.00 360 180 540 2400 240 #REF! Crane #REF!
Ceiling panels 12.00 360 180 540 600 240 1.75E-06 2persons 2.09569E-05 Ceiling panels 12.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF!
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 Two hands 131.328
Roof trusses 12 360 360 720 4200 90 0 Crane 0 Roof trusses 12 360 360 720 4200 90 0 Crane 0
Roof panels 22 360 360 720 600 240 3.17E-06 Crane 6.97139E-05 Roof panels 12.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! Crane #REF!
Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 2.0216 Two hands 0 Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 Two hands 0
Glulam portal 12 180 180 360 5000 240 65 Crane 780 glulam portal
Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per Total Part efficiency Manual handling Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per
Item Item name Number of items Manual handling code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts (Ea) Item Item name Number of items code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts Total Part efficiency (Ea)
s s Description 0.016666667 s s Description 0.000466019

Steel frame 16 99 9 37 7 256 16 first floor level Steel frame 16 99 9 craning 7 256 16
Installed below panels

DPM 1 99 9 9 1 DPM 1 92 2 2 1
of access for insertion
Floor panel 12 99 9 38 6 180 1 Floor panel 5 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 6437.5 1
Placed on steel frame. No restriction in access

Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 4
Wall panels 76 99 9 6 6.5 1178 4 securded Wall panels 32 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 41200 4

Upperfloor panels 12 99 9 48 8.5 210 1 secured. Upperfloor panels 5 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 6437.5 4
secured.
Roof gable 14 99 9 38 6 210 2 Roof gable 6 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 7725 2
Ceiling panels 12 99 9 38 6 180 1 secured. Ceiling panels 5 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 6437.5 1
Crane into place, secured using nail pates.

Roof trusses 12 99 9 38 6 180 12 Roof trusses 12 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 15450 12
Roof panels 24 99 9 38 6 360 2 height. Roof panels 10 Craning 1200 Craning 87.5 12875 2
0 0
Cladding 12 94 20 38 15 420 Cladding 16 94 3 48
Glulam portal 12 glulam portal 0
Number of lifting Connecting time per Distance to move Number of lifting connecting time per distance to move
600 weight point lifting point Connect / disconnect (average) Speed Time t move Total per piece Total (all pieces) Time (minutes) weight point lifting point connect/ disconnect (average) speed time t move total per piece total (all pieces) time (minutes)
Floor panel 12.00 59.78 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 3360 56 Floor panel 6.00 1.22E+02 5 240 1200 7000 80 87.5 2487.5 14925 249
Wall panels 75.00 36.33 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 21000 350 Wall panels 40.00 6.78E+01 3 240 720 7000 80 87.5 1527.5 61100 1019
Upper floor 12.00 57.88 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 3360 56 Ceiling panels 12.00 9.20E+01 4 240 960 7000 80 87.5 2007.5 24090 402
Ceiling panels 12.00 50.27 0 240 0 7000 25 280 280 3360 56 Upperfloor panels 12.00 9.20E+01 4 240 960 7000 80 87.5 2007.5 24090 402
Roof gable 10.00 23.75 1 240 240 7000 100 70 550 5500 92 roof gable 7.00 3.66E+01 2 240 480 7000 80 87.5 1047.5 7332.5 123
Roof panels 22 33.66 2 240 480 7000 100 70 1030 22660 378 Roof panels 12 6.29E+01 3 240 720 7000 80 87.5 1527.5 18330 306
83120 1386 173957.5 2900
155.00 total per building 1386 mins total per building 2903
total per building 23.10 hours total per building 48.38333333
2.89 days 6.047916667
crane cost 1342 per day crane cost 1342

8116.304167
kg lbs
1 0.45 0.0625 1.5875 0.15875
What IS this data?

Assembly of a panel Assembly of a panel

The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres. The panel is simple a box fully filled with insulation. Two or more I joists form the height of the box, and C16 timbers form the end. I joists are repeated at 600mm centres.
Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed. Thick board, typically OSB, is fixed to the frame structure, typically nailed.
The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached (could be on site or in the factory) . The board is turned over, if insulation is as batts then then batts are installed by placing them into the spaces. If insulation is blown then this happens after the second facing is attached (could be on site or in the factory) .
The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use. The second facing is either airtightness membrane or internal boarding, dependant on intended use.
At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board At present no electrical conduit, cladding connectors or other attachments are connected. to the faces of the board
In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors. In the first case the board will be attached to each other and the sole plates using nails. Alternative solution could be proprietry panel connectors.
Wall panel Wall panel
Panel 2.4m*1.8m 2400 1800 Panel 2.4m*1.8m 2400 2400
Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand total weight of parts Item Item name Number of items Symettry Siize Thickness Weight chamfer One hand /two hand total weight
α β total mm /kg α β total mm /kg
Floor panel 4.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! Crane #REF! Floor panel 3 360 180 540 1200 240 293.5143024 Crane 880.5429072
Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328 Sole plate 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Wall panels 28.00 360 180 540 1200 240 #REF! 2persons #REF! Wall panels 20 360 180 540 1200 240 1553.054899 2persons 31061.09798
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 2 hands 131.328
Upperfloor panels 4.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF! Upperfloor panels 3 360 360 720 600 240 148.3838038 2persons 445.1514113
Roof gable 5.00 360 180 540 2400 240 #REF! Crane #REF! Roof gable 4 360 180 540 2400 240 1.86553E-06 Crane 7.46213E-06
Ceiling panels 4.00 360 360 720 600 240 #REF! 2persons #REF! Ceiling panels 3 360 360 720 600 240 148.3838038 2persons 445.1514113
Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 Two hands 131.328 Head binder 10 180 180 360 2400 38 13.1328 Two hands 131.328
Roof trusses 90 360 360 720 4200 90 #REF! Crane #REF! Roof trusses 12 360 360 720 4200 90 0 Crane 0
Roof panels 4.00 360 360 720 600 240 1.55E+02 Crane 621.2219161 Roof panels 6 360 360 720 600 240 155.305479 Crane 931.8328741
Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 Two hands 0 Cladding 180 180 360 4000 19 Two hands 0
glulam portal glulam portal
Manual handling Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per Manual handling Handling time per Manual Insertion Insertion time per
Item Item name Number of items code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts Total Part efficiency (Ea) Item Item name Number of items code item code item Total operation time Figures for min. parts
s s Description 0.002005013 s s Description

Steel frame 1 99 9 craning 7 16 16 first floor level Steel frame 1 99 9 craning 7 16 Installed by professional
16 contractors. Assumed to be a simple box frame with cross members at the first floor level
DPM 1 92 2 2 1 Installed below panels DPM 1 92 2 2 1 Installed below panels

Floor panel 3 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1496.25 1 of access for insertion Floor panel 18 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 8977.5 Panels hand
1 balled into position. No restriction of access for insertion
Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Placed on steel frame. No restriction in access Sole plate 10 99 9 38 6 150 1 Placed on steel frame. No restriction in access

Wall panels 20 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 9975 4 securded Wall panels 18 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled
8977.5
into position. No restricted access in general.
4 Parts added but not secured. Then when all parts in position They are surveyed and securded


Upperfloor panels 3 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1496.25 1 secured. Upperfloor panels 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled5985

Roof gable 4 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1995 2 secured. Roof gable 7 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled
3491.25

Ceiling panels 3 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 1496.25 1 secured. Ceiling panels 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75Hand balled5985

Roof trusses 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 5985 12 Crane into place, secured using nail pates. Roof trusses 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 5985 12 Crane into place, secured using nail pates.

Roof panels 6 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 2992.5 2 height. Roof panels 12 Craning 480 Craning 18.75 5985 2 Craned into position because of working at height.
0 0
Cladding 20 94 3 Cladding 20 94 3
glulam portal 0 glulam portal 0
Number of lifting connecting time per distance to move Number of lifting connecting time per distance to move
weight point lifting point connect/ disconnect (average) speed time t move total per piece total (all pieces) time (minutes) weight point lifting point connect/ disconnect (average) speed time t move
Floor panel 3 1.79E+02 8 240 1920 7000 60 116.6666667 3956.666667 11870 198 Floor panel 3 213.60 9 240 2160 7000 50 140
Wall panels 20 9.93E+01 4 240 960 7000 60 116.6666667 2036.666667 40733.33333 679 Wall panels 10 130.74 6 240 1440 7000 50 140
Ceiling panels 3 1.34E+02 6 240 1440 7000 60 116.6666667 2996.666667 8990 150 Ceiling panels 9 175.58 8 240 1920 7000 50 140
Upperfloor panels 3 1.34E+02 6 240 1440 7000 60 116.6666667 2996.666667 8990 150 Ceiling panels 175.58 8 240 1920 7000 50 140
roof gable 4 6.58E+01 3 240 720 7000 60 116.6666667 1556.666667 6226.666667 104 Roof gable 81.34 4 240 960 7000 50 140
Roof trusses 12 100 4 240 960 7000 60 116.6666667 2036.666667 24440 408 Roof trusses 6 100 4 240 960 7000 50 140
Roof panels 6 9.22E+01 4 240 960 7000 60 116.6666667 2036.666667 12220 204 Roof panels 6 108.20 5 240 1200 7000 50 140
mins total per building 1893 mins total per building
mins (check) total per building 31.55 hours total per building
hours 3.94375 days
per day crane cost 1342 per day crane cost
5292.5125

H SOCIAL
257
H1 RISK ASSESSMENT
The construction is split into four key Hazard events are considered and the
phases based on when a risk product of the severity of accident and
assessment would be completed and the likelihood of an incident is
actions taken. recorded.
A External wall
• Exposure to the elements
B Ground floor
• Exposure to toxic materials
C Upper ceiling
• Risk of injury (equipment)
D Roof
• Multiple activities in a small
E Internal walls
area
F Internal finishes
• Handling
G: Maintenance;
• Risk of falling
H End of life
The severity of the identified accidents

are scored according to the level of Likelihood is determined
notification to the HSE required.
1) Recordable incident (>3days

1) Remote/ unlikely
incapacitated );
2) Reportable incident (7 days of

2) Possible: could occur some time ,
work)
3) Probably: will occur several

3) Death of a person
times
4) Likely: occur repeatedly/event

only to be expected
258
H1 Risk assessment Ruth Sutton
Risk assessment for traditional construction r
A External Wall
The brick and block work is built by a team of brick layers. The materials are
assembled in situ at the building. Materials are transported to where the assembly
occurs. This could be by vehicles or by manual handling. The assembly requires
repeated movement lifting bricks to the wall. Materials may need to be prepared by
cutting and this can done using an axel grinder, us by brick cutter.
The work is outside and workers are always exposed to the elements.
Preparation of bricks is often completed using an angle grinder. This represents a

vibration hazard. Equipment has been designed to minimise the associated which
could replace use of the angle grinder.
Mortar and concrete are hazardous materials to human health. Contact with the
materials should be minimised. Inhalation of dust should be minimised also. This
can achieved by use of PPE.
Where materials are heavy, they move in small batches or moved using vehicles.
Bricklaying requires repeated bending and lifting movements. To minimise risk the
distance materials are moved should be minimised. This can achieved by raising
materials to the level of the builder. When construction work occurs at height, the
work station needs to move so that the workers position is safe, this can be
achieved using scaffolding, working platforms or similar.
C Ground floor
The ground floor is at ground level. Concrete is poured and levelled using
machinery.
The work is outside and workers are always exposed to the elements.
Mortar and concrete are hazardous materials to human health. Contact with the
materials should be minimised. Inhalation of dust should be minimised also. This
can achieved by use of PPE.
Construction of the floor slab occurs early in the process. As such, there are few
other obstructions.
259
Materials are delivered to assembly area by vehicles.
Trip hazards are those associated with a general contraction site. No increase risk
associated with the activity.
D&E Upper ceiling
The ceiling structure is built of timber joist and struts, chipboard floor covering and
plasterboard ceiling. Insulation is inserted to minimise sound transference. The
upper ceiling does not have the floor covering of the insulation. To construct, joist
hangers are attached to the inner leaf of the building wall external walls, and
timber beams are inserted. Plasterboard in attached to the bottom of the joists.
Insulation is inserted between the joists. Floor boards are screwed to the top of the
joists.
The work is outside and workers are always exposed to the elements. However
there is some shelter from the walls. The roof has not be constructed.
Materials have low toxicity. However, care must be taken when preparing and
handling the materials. Cutting timber can produce hazardous dust and insulation
can be a skin irritant.
Preparation of materials require cutting equipment. Installation is above head

height, so lifting equipment and a raised platform is required.
The space in which the construction occurs is confined; however, other

construction processes are limited.
Materials are large and may require two persons to handle. Installation is over head
so work should occur using a raised platform and materials should be available at
the height of the platform.
Work occurs at height and as such there is a risk of falling.
F Roof.
The roof trusses are prefabricated offsite and brought to site from the factory. A
crane will lift the trusses into place . Workers are needed at roof height to secure
the trusses. A working platform at roof height is required (scaffolding). Once
secured roof felt covers the trusses. Battens are fixed and the roof is tiled.
260
The work is very exposed, occurring both outside and at height.
Materials are non toxic. Mortar is used to fix tiles, which can be an irritant.
Trusses are positioned using a crane and their positions secured by the workers.
The trusses are large and heavy and their movement, controlled by the crane but
affected by wind must be carefully managed.
Positioning the trusses requires the workers to use two hands. They are working at
height. The risk of falling is high.
G Internal walls
Structural walls are built in a similar manner to the external walls and the workers
are exposed to the same hazards.
H Internal finishes
Internal finishes are created using wet plaster or plaster board. These are applied
by hand. They represent low risk, although the compound is alkaline and a potential
irritant so PPE should be used.
261
H.1.1 Responsible Soucing
Material Score
Steel 3.0
Glulam 3.0
I joist 3.0
Red cedar 2.0
Zinc 3.0
Stone 2
Warmcell 2
Rockwool 2.5
EPS 0.0
Plaster board 2.0
Sheep wool 3.0
Timber (general) 3.0
Membrane 1.0
OSB 3.0
Brick 3.0
Block 3.0
Concrete 3.0
Wet plaster 3.0
Roof tiles 3.0
H.1.2 Responsible sourcing
Data was collected from supplier websites, or direct contact with the supplier.
262
263

BES6001 accreditation
environmental/other
Responsible sourcing
Internal document
ems14001: 2004
OHSAS18001
iso9001/EPD
GRI (all)
BS 8902
Score
PEFC
BBA
ETI
Structural 90x240mm 2.5
Glulam 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
portal glulam
Structural Steel rsj beam 2.0
Steel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0
portal 203*133
240x45mm 2.5
TF panel I-joists 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
timber I-Joist
Structural 18mm 2.5
SIP Panel 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0
board SIP 2440x1220 OSB3
Sheathing 11mm 2.5

TF panel 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0
board 2440x1220 OSB3
Panel
240*44mm SW 2.5
TF panel structure 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0
battens
C16
Top plates;
Fabric (sole)plates 44x240mm SW 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 2.5
assembly …
Structural 89x38mm SW 2.5
TF panel 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0
stud battens
External 38x50mm
panel faces External treated SW 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 2.5
(excluding battens battens
floor)
Internal
Internal battens 44x69mm SW 2.5
1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0
panel faces (plaster battens
board)
18mm OSB 2.5
Inner lining OSB panel
1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0
Insulation Warmcel Blown material 0 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 1 0 0 1.5

Insulation 3
Insulation Rockwool 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
batts
Insulation 3
Insulation Sheep wool 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0
batts
SIP panel EPS density 0
Insulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
sandwich 20kg/m3
94x19mm
Cladding Red Cedar Western Red 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 2.0
Cedar
4mm thick
Cladding Zinc cladding 600mm 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 3.0
spacing
Taylor Maxwell z
Stone 3.0
Cladding shaped stone 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 0
cladding
cladding
264
Board:
Plasterboar 2
Lining 12.5x1200 0 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0
d
x2400mm
Internal Pro Clima Intello 0
Membrane membrane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Plus
Breather Pro Clima Solitex 0. 0
Membrane membrane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WA 0
Damp proof 0. 0
Membrane membrane DPM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
265
A&B C&D E F
Structural Frame Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood
Handling 0 3*2 0 3*3
Risk of falling 0 3*3 0 0
Exposure to toxic materials 0 1*1 0 1*1
Exposure to the elements 0 2*3 0 2*3
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 0 2*3 0 3*3
Load bearing panels
Handling 2*3 3*2 0 3*3
Risk of falling 2*3 3*3 0 0
Exposure to toxic materials 1*1 1*1 0 1*1
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 2*3 2*3 0 3*3
Panel size 600/1200
Handling 1*3 1*3 0 1*3
Exposure to toxic materials 3*2 0 0 0
Panel size 1800/2400
Handling 2*3 2*3 0 2*3
Insulation batts
Handling 0 0 0 0
Risk of falling 0 0 0 0
Exposure to toxic materials 0 0 0 0
Exposure to the elements 0 0 0 0
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 1*2 1*2 0 0
Blown Insulation
Handling 0 0 0 0
Risk of falling 0 0 0 0
Exposure to toxic materials 0 0 0
0
Exposure to the elements 0 0 0 0
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 0 0

0 0
EPS
Handling 0 0 0 0
Risk of falling 0 0 0
0
266
Exposure to the elements 0 0

0 0
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 0 0

0 0
Timber Frame
Handling 1*3 1*3 0 1*3
SIP
Handling 1*3 1*3 0 1*3
Red cedar
Handling 1*3 1*3 1*3 1*3
Risk of falling 0
3*2 3*2 3*2
Exposure to toxic materials 2*2 2*1 2*1 0

Exposure to the elements 0 2*2 2*2 2*1
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 2*2 2*2 2*2 0
Stone
Handling 1*3 1*3 1*3 1*3
Risk of falling 0
3*2 3*2 3*2
Exposure to toxic materials 2*2 2*1 2*1 0

Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 2*2 2*2 2*2 0
Zinc
Handling 0 1*3 1*3 1*3
Risk of falling 0
3*2 3*2 3*2

Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 0 1*2 1*2 0
Open panel
Handling 1*3 1*3 0 1*3
Closed Panel
Handling 2*3 2*3 0 2*3
267

Volumetric
Handling 2*3 2*3 0 1*3
268
Adaptability
Internal finishes Maintenance End of life

First floor/upper
External wall Ground floor Roof
ceiling
Internal wall
Con. Con. Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood
Traditional construction Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood
* L-Hood * L-Hood
Handling 1*4 1*1 2*3 3*2 1*4 3*2 1*2
3*2 2*2
Risk of falling 3*2 1*2 3*2 3*3 1*1
Exposure to toxic materials 1*4 1*4 1*2 1*4 1*4 1*1 1*1
Exposure to the elements 1*4 1*4 1*4 1*4 1*4 1*4 1*4
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 1*2 1*1 1*1 3*4 1*1 2*2 2*2
First floor/upper End of life

External wall Ground floor Roof Internal finishes Maintenance
ceiling
Internal wall
Traditional construction Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood Con. * L-Hood
Handling 4 1 6 6 4 6 2
6 4
Risk of falling 6 2 6 9 1
Exposure to toxic materials 4 4 2 4 4 1 1
Exposure to the elements 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Risk of Injury (by equipment ) 2 1 1 12 1 4 4
20 12 19 35 14 21 15
269
H.1.3 Adaptability
Marking sheet Indicator Max.

Design……………… Score
1a Design flexibility Capacity to have a 20 0-5 Bespoke design for the building .
range of buildings 5-10 Some common design elements used within
using similar the design but not between different designs
components (product 10-15 Some design details Components/
platform) Panels/volumes expected to be usable within a
range of design. Design principles shared across
options.
15-20 Active identification of components/panels
to be used in product range
2a In-use Layering 30 0-5 Low proportion of materials with lifetime
Maintenance, Where materials have less than 25 years can be removed without
shorter lifetimes, they significant additional damage or cost
can be replaced 6-10 Some materials with lifetime less than 25
without damaging the years can be removed without significant
longer lasting additional damage or cost
components (which 11-15 Most materials with lifetime less than
are still serviceable). 25years can be removed without significant
additional damage or cost
2b In-use Structure allows for 20 0-5 Internal walls required for fabric stability
Change of use changes in fabric and to support load of upper floors.
arrangement without 5-9- Internal wall support internal floors only
significant 10-14 Some internal walls structurally necessary
reengineering. but only a central core, (large spaces remain ) A
Are any internal walls number of different configurations are available)
load bearing 15-20 Internal space is completely flexible.
structures?
3 Disassembly and Change of location of 30 0 -4 Elements are not designed to be taken
reuse at end of the building (dismantle apart. Components materials can be recycled
life and rebuild) 5-10 Individual components can be recovered
Can the building be and reused
disassembled and 11-15 Some assembled components can be
reassembled in its recovered and reused, but with significant fixing
current form? required. (screwed rather than nailed)
Can building modules 16-20 Most components can be recovered and
be recovered and used reused.
in different form? 20-25 Building is designed to be dissembled and
reassembled
25-30 Building is designed to be disassembled
and reconfigured as desired
score
1
0
0
270
Traditional construction: Adaptability
Traditional build Score
Indicator
1a Design Bricks and tiles are versatile and are

flexibility able to produce a variety of forms.
Joist and trusses are bespoke; they

are engineered to be suitable for the
building design.
1b Brick and tiles are available in a range

of finishes.
The structural strength of the brick

and block form enable them to used
created a variety of forms. There are
no constraints to the suitability
heating systems. The building has
thermal mass so will have a lagged
response to heating and cooling.
2a Long life As layout
The concrete floor and upperfloor

would require specific consideration if
lifetime homes was required.
2b Service runs would be embedded into

the internal plaster serfaces. Changes
to any services would require the
surface finish to be disturbed and,
later repaired.
271
3 Maintenance There is little consideration of layering

flexibility in the design. Access for maintenace
and repair require breaking and repair
of materials.
4 Change of Not economically feasible.

location of
the building
(dismantle
and rebuild)
5a Change of use The building has been designed such

that internal wall contribute to the
structural stability of the building. Any
alterations to the internal layout
would require consideration of the
structural impact of the changes.
5c Any additional structure would need

to be independently structurally
stable.
272
I TOTAL SCORES
273
Stage Location Parameter Panel Component Proccess cost labour power time
Material Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Component Original Material SIP 600 £ 5,381.90 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Component Original Material SIP 1200 £ 5,921.33 0.00 £ - 0.00
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Component Original Manufacture SIP 600 £ 1,186.34 £ 238.83 £ 2,971.76 29466.17
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Component Original Manufacture SIP 1200 £ 1,064.41 £ 124.50 £ 1,564.09 14733.09
Assembly Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Component Original Setup SIP 600 £ 27.27 £ 1.97 £ - 540.00
Assembly Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Component Original Setup SIP 1200 £ 21.21 £ 1.53 £ - 420.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Material TFpanel 600 £ 9,811.93 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Maintenance Material TFpanel 600 £ 641.47 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Maintenance Material TFpanel 1200 £ 1,068.99 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Lining Original Material TFpanel 600 £ 158.14 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Lining Maintenance Material TFpanel 600 £ 661.31 0.00 £ - 0.00
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Lining Original Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 43.74 £ 11.17 £ 278.72 2533.78
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Lining Maintenance Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 43.74 £ 32.57 £ 800.55 7277.72
HI Summary Appendix I - 274

Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Warmcell Original Material TFpanel 600 £ 3,000.00 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Rockwool Original Material TFpanel 600 £ 3,810.37 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Sheep wool Original Material TFpanel 600 £ 6,428.04 0.00 £ - 0.00
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 1,170.88 £ 1,234.43 £ 55.14 283624.98
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Manufacture TFpanel 1200 £ 1,071.15 £ 1,036.20 £ 50.55 227083.13
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Manufacture TFpanel 1800 £ 744.12 £ 691.58 £ 35.12 147454.92
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Manufacture TFpanel 2400 £ 352.08 £ 378.96 £ 16.58 83327.78
Manufacture Site Cost TFpanel OPCL Warmcell Original Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ - £ 11.58 3182.61
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Rockwool Original Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 102.49 £ 97.14 £ 2,486.58 22605.31
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Rockwool Original Manufacture TFpanel 1200 £ 55.35 £ 52.68 £ 1,348.40 12258.16
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Rockwool Original Manufacture TFpanel 1800 £ 39.64 £ 37.86 £ 969.05 8809.59
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Rockwool Original Manufacture TFpanel 2400 £ 31.78 £ 30.44 £ 779.30 7084.58
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Sheep wool Original Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 98.78 £ 93.70 £ 1,893.87 17217.00
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Sheep wool Original Manufacture TFpanel 1200 £ 53.50 £ 50.96 £ 1,031.83 9380.25
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Sheep wool Original Manufacture TFpanel 1800 £ 38.40 £ 36.71 £ 744.48 6768.00
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Sheep wool Original Manufacture TFpanel 2400 £ 30.85 £ 29.58 £ 600.81 5461.88

Manufacture Factory cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Setup TFpanel 600 £ 33.33 £ 2.40 £ - 660.00
Assembly Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Assembly TFpanel 600 £ 2,006.79 £ 4,282.08 £ - 3.86E+05
Assembly Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Assembly TFpanel 1200 £ 1,133.01 £ 733.55 £ 399.46 2.18E+05
Assembly Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Assembly TFpanel 1800 £ 1,200.61 £ 777.32 £ 423.29 2.31E+05
Assembly Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Component Original Assembly TFpanel 2400 £ 967.11 £ 626.14 £ 340.97 2.57E+05
Transport Transport Cost Open OPCL Building Original Transport SIP 600 £ 66.00 £ - £ - 0.00
Transport Transport Cost Open OPCL Building Original Transport SIP 1200 £ 66.00 £ - £ - 0.00
Transport Transport Cost Closed OPCL Building Original Transport SIP 600 £ 66.00 £ - £ - 0.00
Transport Transport Cost Closed OPCL Building Original Transport SIP 1200 £ 66.00 £ - £ - 0.00
Transport Transport Cost Open OPCL Building Original Transport TFpanel 600 £ 66.00 £ - £ - 0.00
Transport Transport Cost Closed OPCL Building Original Transport TFpanel 600 £ 66.00 £ - £ - 0.00
Transport Transport Cost Volumetric Volume Building Original Transport Volume 600 £ 264.00 £ - £ - 0.00

Material Factory Cost Cladding OPCL Z-shaped stone cladding
Original Material Any 600 £ 5,421.12 0 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost Cladding OPCL Western Red Cedar
Material Factory Cost Cladding OPCL Zinc cladding Original Material Any 600 £ 15,690.07 0 £ - 0.00
Maintenance Maintenance Any 600 £ - 0 £ - 0.00
Maintenance Maintenance Any 600 £ 12,942.32 0 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost Cladding OPCL Zinc cladding Maintenance Maintenance Any 600 £ - 0 £ - 0.00

Manufacture Site Cost Cladding OPCL Z-shaped stone cladding
Original Manufacture Any 600 £ - £ -
Manufacture Factory Cost Cladding OPCL Western Red Cedar
Original Manufacture Any 600 £ 400.17 £ 1.46 £ 44.02 400.17
Manufacture Site Cost Cladding OPCL Zinc cladding Original Manufacture Any 600 £ - £ -
Assembly Site Cost Cladding OPCL Z-shaped stone cladding
Original Assembly Any 600 £ 7,370.80 £ 81.51 2.24E+04
Assembly Site Cost Cladding OPCL Western Red Cedar
Original Assembly Any 600 £ 165.90 £ 175.99 4.84E+04
Assembly Site Cost Cladding OPCL Zinc cladding Original Assembly Any 600 £ 4,282.08 £ 40.50 1.11E+04

Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Lining Original Manufacture SIP Panel 600 £ 43.74 £ 11.17 £ 278.72 2533.78
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Lining Original Manufacture SIP Panel 1200 £ 36.52 £ 9.38 £ 232.26 2111.48
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Lining Maintenance Manufacture SIP Panel 600 £ 43.74 £ 32.57 £ 800.55 7277.72
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Lining Maintenance Manufacture SIP Panel 1200 £ 43.74 £ 27.14 £ 667.12 6064.77
Assembly Site Cost TFpanel OPCL Building Original Setup TFpanel 600 £ - £ -
Manufacture Site Cost SIP Panel OPCL Building Original Setup SIP 600 £ - £ -
Manufacture Site Cost SIP Panel OPCL Building Original Setup SIP 1200 £ - £ -
Assembly Site Cost Open OPCL Building Original Assembly SIP 600 £ 2,542.05 £ 2,542.05 0.00E+00 6.99E+05
Assembly Site Cost Open OPCL Building Original Assembly SIP 1200 £ 1,961.74 £ 1,961.74 0.00E+00 5.39E+05
Assembly Site Cost Open OPCL Building Original Assembly TFpanel 600 £ 2,542.05 £ 2,542.05 6.99E+05
Assembly Site Cost Closed OPCL Building Original Assembly TFpanel 600 £ 4,866.92 4867 1.08E+06

Assembly Site Cost Volumetric Volume Building Original Assembly Volumetric 600 £ 8,921.10 £ 8,921.10 2.45E+06
Manufacture Site Cost TFpanel OPCL Building Original Setup TFpanel 600 £ - £ -
Disposal Site Cost TFpanel OPCL Building End of life Waste TFpanel 600 £ 1,056.92 0 0
Disposal Site Cost TFpanel OPCL Building End of life Waste TFpanel 1200 £ 966.34 0 0
Disposal Site Cost SIP Panel OPCL Building End of life Waste SIP Panel 600 £ 945.94 0 0
Disposal Site Cost SIP Panel OPCL Building End of life Waste SIP Panel 1200 £ 851.83 0 0
Disposal Site Cost Cladding OPCL Z-shaped stone cladding
End of life Waste Cladding - £ 434.49 0 0
Disposal Site Cost Cladding OPCL Zinc cladding End of life Waste Cladding -- £ 73.07 0 0
Disposal Site Cost Cladding OPCL Western Red Cedar
End of life Waste Cladding - 202.6940259 0 0
Disposal Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Lining End of life Waste SIP Panel 600 £ 223.05 0 0 0
Disposal Factory Cost SIP Panel OPCL Lining End of life Waste SIP Panel 1200 £ 268.92 0 0 0
Disposal Factory Cost TFpanel OPCL Lining End of life Waste TFpanel 600 £ 223.05 0 0 0

Material Factory Cost TFpanel Volume Component volume Material TFpanel 1200 £ 16,749.19 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost TFpanel Volume Component Maintenance Material TFpanel 1200 £ - 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost Volumetric Volume Lining Original Material Volumetric 600 £ 192.62 0.00 £ - 0.00
Material Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Component Original Material SIP 600
Material Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Component Original Material SIP 1200
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Component Original Manufacture SIP 600
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Component Original Manufacture SIP 1200
Assembly Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Component Original Setup SIP 600
Assembly Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Component Original Setup SIP 1200

Material Factory Cost TFpanel volume Lining Original Material TFpanel 600 £ 263.15
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel volume Lining Original Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 314.09
Manufacture Factory Cost TFpanel volume Lining Maintenance Manufacture TFpanel 600 £ 203.19
Manufacture Factory cost TFpanel volume Component Original Setup TFpanel 600 £ 106.05
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Lining Original Manufacture SIP Panel 600
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Lining Original Manufacture SIP Panel 1200
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Lining Maintenance Manufacture SIP Panel 600
Manufacture Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Lining Maintenance Manufacture SIP Panel 1200
Manufacture Site Cost SIP Panel volume Building Original Setup SIP 600
Manufacture Site Cost SIP Panel volume Building Original Setup SIP 1200
Disposal Site Cost TFpanel volume Building End of life Waste TFpanel 600 £ 2,214.84 0.00E+00
Disposal Site Cost SIP Panel volume Building End of life Waste SIP Panel 600
Disposal Site Cost SIP Panel volume Building End of life Waste SIP Panel 1200
Disposal Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Lining End of life Waste SIP Panel 600
Disposal Factory Cost SIP Panel volume Lining End of life Waste SIP Panel 1200
Disposal Factory Cost TFpanel volume Lining End of life Waste TFpanel 600 £ 461.91 0.00E+00

Panel
size
(600/120
0/1800/2 Open/Closed/ Structure Cladding Structural
timber /sip 400) Volumetric (glulam /steel/none) (red cedar/stone/zinc) Insulation Cost Transport Assembly assembly Disposal Total cost
factory;
TF/SIP factory; factory; factory;
components, TF TF TF
original and lining cladding insul
maintenance original and original and original and site
materials, maintenance maintenance maintenance panels
manufacture and materials materials, materials, assembly Structural Frame
assembly manufacture and manufacture and manufacture and maintenance Materials and
panel size assembly assembly assembly transport assembly Assembly Disposal
1 traditional £ 18,794.92 £ 18,794.92

2 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 33,641.05
3 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,553.92
4 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 37,167.88
5 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 30,645.99
6 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 31,558.85
7 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,172.82
8 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 40,914.94
9 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 41,827.80
10 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 44,441.77
11 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 31,073.91
12 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 31,986.77
13 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 34,600.73
14 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 28,078.84
15 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 28,991.71
16 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 31,605.67
17 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 38,347.80
18 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 39,260.66
19 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 41,874.62
20 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,054.14
21 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,967.00
22 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 37,580.97
23 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 31,059.08
24 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 31,971.94
25 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,585.90
26 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 41,328.03
27 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 42,240.89
28 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 44,854.86
29 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 33,858.23
30 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,771.09
31 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 37,385.06
32 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 30,863.16
33 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 31,776.03
34 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,389.99
35 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 41,132.12
36 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 42,044.98
37 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,279.97 £ 44,658.94
38 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 31,291.08
39 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 32,203.95
40 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 34,817.91
41 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 28,296.02
42 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 29,208.88
43 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 31,822.85
44 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 38,564.97
45 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 39,477.83
46 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,279.97 £ 42,091.80
47 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,271.32
48 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 35,184.18
49 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 37,798.14
50 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 31,276.25
51 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 32,189.11
52 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 34,803.08
53 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 41,545.21
54 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 42,458.07
55 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 13,664.41 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,279.97 £ 45,072.03
56 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 31,147.55
57 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 32,060.41
58 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 34,674.38
59 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 28,152.49
60 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 29,065.35
61 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 31,679.31
62 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 38,421.44
63 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 39,334.30
64 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 2,676.75 £ 41,948.27
65 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 28,580.41
66 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 29,493.27
67 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 32,107.23
68 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 25,585.34
69 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 26,498.20
70 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 29,112.17
71 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 35,854.29
72 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 36,767.16
73 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 2,676.75 £ 39,381.12
74 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 31,560.64
75 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 32,473.50
76 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 35,087.47
77 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 28,565.58
78 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 29,478.44
79 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 32,092.40
80 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 38,834.53
81 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 3,913 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 39,747.39
82 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 7,006.06 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ 6,527 £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 2,676.75 £ 42,361.35
83 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 31,458.25
84 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 32,323.97
85 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 34,939.79
Soluitions List Appendix I - P 285

Panel
size
(600/120
factory;
86 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 28,441.78
87 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 29,307.51
88 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 31,923.33
89 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 38,710.74
90 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 39,576.46
91 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 42,192.28
92 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 28,891.10
93 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 29,756.83
94 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 32,372.65
95 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 25,874.64
96 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 26,740.36
97 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 29,356.18
98 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 36,143.59
99 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 37,009.31
100 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 39,625.13
101 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 31,871.34
102 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 32,737.06
103 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 35,352.88
104 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 28,854.87
105 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 29,720.59
106 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 32,336.41
107 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 39,123.82
108 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 39,989.55
109 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 42,605.37
110 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 31,473.51
111 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 32,339.23
112 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 34,955.05
113 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 28,457.05
114 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 29,322.77
115 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 31,938.59
116 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 38,726.00
117 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 39,591.72
118 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,235.26 £ 42,207.54
119 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 28,906.37
120 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 29,772.09
121 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 32,387.91
122 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 25,889.90
123 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 26,755.62
124 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 29,371.44
125 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 36,158.85
126 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 37,024.58
127 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,235.26 £ 39,640.40
128 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 31,886.60
129 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 32,752.32
130 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 35,368.14
131 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 28,870.13
132 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 29,735.86
133 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 32,351.68
134 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 39,139.09
135 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 40,004.81
136 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 12,272.01 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,235.26 £ 42,620.63
137 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 36,043.18
138 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 36,908.90
139 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 39,524.72
140 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 33,026.71
141 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 33,892.43
142 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 36,508.25
143 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 43,295.66
144 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 44,161.39
145 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,719.62 £ 46,777.21
146 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 33,476.03
147 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 34,341.75
148 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 36,957.57
149 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 30,459.57
150 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 31,325.29
151 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 33,941.11
152 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 40,728.52
153 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 41,594.24
154 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,719.62 £ 44,210.06
155 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 36,456.27
156 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 37,321.99
157 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 39,937.81
158 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 33,439.80
159 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 34,305.52
160 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 36,921.34
161 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 3,000 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 43,708.75
162 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 3,866 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 44,574.47
163 TFpanel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool £ 16,821.91 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ 6,482 £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,719.62 £ 47,190.29
Soluitions List Appendix I - 286

Panel
size
(600/120
factory;

Panel
size
(600/120
factory;
326 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 1,967 £ 8,416 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 26,552.01
327 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 22,583.89
328 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 32,852.84
329 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 23,011.81
330 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 20,016.74
331 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 30,285.69
332 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 25,992.04
333 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 22,996.98
334 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 4,866.92 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 33,265.93
335 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 25,796.13
336 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 22,801.06
337 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 33,070.02
338 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 23,228.98
339 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 20,233.92
340 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 30,502.87
Soluitions List Appendix I- 288

Panel
size
(600/120
factory;
341 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 8,416 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 26,209.22
342 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 23,214.15
343 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,602.30 £ 994 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 5,084.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 33,483.10
344 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 27,709.73
345 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 24,714.67
346 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,168.98 £ 34,983.62
347 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 25,142.59
348 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 22,147.52
349 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ - £ 1,168.98 £ 32,416.47
350 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 8,416 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 28,122.82
351 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 5,421 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 25,127.76
352 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,568.24 £ 973 £ 15,690 £ - £ 264.00 £ 8,921.10 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,168.98 £ 35,396.71
353 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 24,326.20
354 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 21,309.74
355 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 31,578.69
356 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 21,759.06
357 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 18,742.59
358 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 29,011.55
359 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 24,739.29
360 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 21,722.83
361 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,908.23 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 31,991.78
362 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 24,341.47
363 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 21,325.00
364 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 31,593.95
365 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 21,774.32
366 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 18,757.86
367 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 29,026.81
368 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 8,438 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 24,754.56
369 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 5,421 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 21,738.09
370 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 8,139.96 £ 1,141 £ 15,690 £ - £ 132.00 £ 3,923.49 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 32,007.04
371 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 23,207.01
372 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 20,190.54
373 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,567.15 £ 1,120.75 £ 30,459.49
374 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 20,639.86
375 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 17,623.39
376 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ - £ 1,120.75 £ 27,892.35
377 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 8,438 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 23,620.09
378 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 5,421 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 20,603.63
379 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3
£ 6,985.74 £ 1,101 £ 15,690 £ - £ 264.00 £ 3,851.40 £ 2,980.23 £ 1,120.75 £ 30,872.58

Panel
size
(600/120
0/1800/2 Open/Closed/ Structure Cladding
timber /sip 400) Volumetric (glulam /steel/none) (red cedar/stone/zinc) Insulation Time
factory; factory;
TF TF factory; factory;
components, lining TF TF site
original and maintenance original and maintenance cladding insul panels
materials, manufacture and assembly materials original and maintenance original and maintenance assembly
panel size manufacture and assembly materials, manufacture and assembly materials, manufacture and assembly transport maintenance assembly Structural frame Total time Total total time hours total time/ days
1 traditional 781596 217.11
2 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1767489.33 1767115.329 490.97 61.37115727
3 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1790094.64 1789720.639 497.25 62.15606386
4 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1784706.33 1784332.331 495.75 61.96896982
5 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1767089.16 1766715.156 490.86 61.35726235
6 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1789694.47 1789320.466 497.14 62.14216895
7 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1784306.16 1783932.157 495.64 61.95507491
8 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1767089.16 1766715.156 490.86 61.35726235
9 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1789694.47 1789320.466 497.14 62.14216895
10 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1784306.16 1783932.157 495.64 61.95507491
11 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1767115.33 1767115.329 490.87 61.35817116
12 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1789720.64 1789720.639 497.14 62.14307775
13 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1784332.33 1784332.331 495.65 61.95598371
14 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1766715.16 1766715.156 490.75 61.34427624
15 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1789320.47 1789320.466 497.03 62.12918284
16 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1783932.16 1783932.157 495.54 61.9420888
17 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1766715.16 1766715.156 490.75 61.34427624
18 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1789320.47 1789320.466 497.03 62.12918284
19 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1783932.16 1783932.157 495.54 61.9420888
20 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1767251.33 1767115.329 490.90 61.36289338
21 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1789856.64 1789720.639 497.18 62.14779998
22 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1784468.33 1784332.331 495.69 61.96070594
23 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1766851.16 1766715.156 490.79 61.34899846
24 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1789456.47 1789320.466 497.07 62.13390506
25 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1784068.16 1783932.157 495.57 61.94681102
26 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1766851.16 1766715.156 490.79 61.34899846
27 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1789456.47 1789320.466 497.07 62.13390506
28 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1784068.16 1783932.157 495.57 61.94681102
29 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2087760.98 2087386.977 579.93 72.4917006
30 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2110366.29 2109992.287 586.21 73.2766072
31 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2104977.98 2104603.979 584.72 73.08951316
32 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2087360.80 2086986.804 579.82 72.47780569
33 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2109966.11 2109592.114 586.10 73.26271228
34 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2104577.81 2104203.805 584.60 73.07561824
35 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2087360.80 2086986.804 579.82 72.47780569
36 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2109966.11 2109592.114 586.10 73.26271228
37 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 2104577.81 2104203.805 584.60 73.07561824
38 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2087386.98 2087386.977 579.83 72.47871449
39 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2109992.29 2109992.287 586.11 73.26362109
40 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2104603.98 2104603.979 584.61 73.07652705
41 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2086986.80 2086986.804 579.72 72.46481957
42 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2109592.11 2109592.114 586.00 73.24972617
43 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2104203.81 2104203.805 584.50 73.06263213
44 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2086986.80 2086986.804 579.72 72.46481957
45 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2109592.11 2109592.114 586.00 73.24972617
46 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 2104203.81 2104203.805 584.50 73.06263213
47 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2087522.98 2087386.977 579.87 72.48343671
48 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2110128.29 2109992.287 586.15 73.26834331
49 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2104739.98 2104603.979 584.65 73.08124927
50 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2087122.80 2086986.804 579.76 72.4695418
51 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2109728.11 2109592.114 586.04 73.25444839
52 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2104339.81 2104203.805 584.54 73.06735436
53 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2087122.80 2086986.804 579.76 72.4695418
54 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2109728.11 2109592.114 586.04 73.25444839
55 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 2104339.81 2104203.805 584.54 73.06735436
56 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3142203.86 3141829.857 872.83 109.1043006
57 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3164809.17 3164435.167 879.11 109.8892072
58 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3159420.86 3159046.859 877.62 109.7021132
59 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3141803.68 3141429.684 872.72 109.0904057
60 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3164408.99 3164034.994 879.00 109.8753123
61 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3159020.69 3158646.685 877.51 109.6882182
62 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3141803.68 3141429.684 872.72 109.0904057
63 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3164408.99 3164034.994 879.00 109.8753123
64 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 3159020.69 3158646.685 877.51 109.6882182
65 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3141829.86 3141829.857 872.73 109.0913145
66 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3164435.17 3164435.167 879.01 109.8762211
67 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3159046.86 3159046.859 877.51 109.689127
68 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3141429.68 3141429.684 872.62 109.0774196
69 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3164034.99 3164034.994 878.90 109.8623262
70 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3158646.69 3158646.685 877.40 109.6752321
71 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3141429.68 3141429.684 872.62 109.0774196
72 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3164034.99 3164034.994 878.90 109.8623262
73 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 3158646.69 3158646.685 877.40 109.6752321
74 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3141965.86 3141829.857 872.77 109.0960367
75 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3164571.17 3164435.167 879.05 109.8809433
76 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 400.17 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3159182.86 3159046.859 877.55 109.6938493
77 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3141565.68 3141429.684 872.66 109.0821418
78 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3164170.99 3164034.994 878.94 109.8670484
79 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3158782.69 3158646.685 877.44 109.6799544
80 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3141565.68 3141429.684 872.66 109.0821418
81 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 22605.31 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3164170.99 3164034.994 878.94 109.8670484
82 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 670206.70 19622.99 0.00 17217.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 3158782.69 3158646.685 877.44 109.6799544

Panel
size
(600/120
factory; factory;

Panel
size
(600/120
factory; factory;

Panel
size
(600/120
factory; factory;
326 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1513210.53 1512836.527 420.34 52.54203218
327 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1512810.35 1512436.353 420.23 52.52813727
328 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 374.00 1512810.35 1512436.353 420.23 52.52813727
329 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1512836.53 1512836.527 420.23 52.52904607
330 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1512436.35 1512436.353 420.12 52.51515116
331 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 0.00 1512436.35 1512436.353 420.12 52.51515116
332 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1512972.53 1512836.527 420.27 52.53376829
333 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1512572.35 1512436.353 420.16 52.51987338
334 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076885.47 136.00 1512572.35 1512436.353 420.16 52.51987338
335 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 1833482.17 1833108.175 509.30 63.66257552
336 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 1833082.00 1832708.001 509.19 63.6486806
337 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 374.00 1833082.00 1832708.001 509.19 63.6486806
338 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 1833108.17 1833108.175 509.20 63.6495894
339 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 1832708.00 1832708.001 509.09 63.63569449
340 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 0.00 1832708.00 1832708.001 509.09 63.63569449

Panel
size
(600/120
factory; factory;
341 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 1833244.17 1833108.175 509.23 63.65431163
342 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 1832844.00 1832708.001 509.12 63.64041671
343 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1397157.12 136.00 1832844.00 1832708.001 509.12 63.64041671
344 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 2887925.05 2887551.055 802.20 100.2751755
345 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 2887524.88 2887150.881 802.09 100.2612806
346 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 374.00 2887524.88 2887150.881 802.09 100.2612806
347 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 2887551.05 2887551.055 802.10 100.2621894
348 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 2887150.88 2887150.881 801.99 100.2482945
349 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 0.00 2887150.88 2887150.881 801.99 100.2482945
350 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 400.17 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 2887687.05 2887551.055 802.14 100.2669116
351 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 2887286.88 2887150.881 802.02 100.2530167
352 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 415927.89 19622.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 2451600.00 136.00 2887286.88 2887150.881 802.02 100.2530167
353 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 864757.87 374.00 1114946.05 1114572.054 309.71 38.71340464
354 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 864757.87 374.00 1114524.48 1114150.479 309.59 38.69876663
355 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 864757.87 374.00 1114524.48 1114150.479 309.59 38.69876663
356 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 864757.87 0.00 1114572.05 1114572.054 309.60 38.70041853
357 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 864757.87 0.00 1114150.48 1114150.479 309.49 38.68578052
358 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 864757.87 0.00 1114150.48 1114150.479 309.49 38.68578052
359 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 864757.87 136.00 1114708.05 1114572.054 309.64 38.70514076
360 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 864757.87 136.00 1114286.48 1114150.479 309.52 38.69050275
361 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 864757.87 136.00 1114286.48 1114150.479 309.52 38.69050275
362 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 374.00 1328398.74 1328024.742 369.00 46.12495631
363 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 374.00 1327977.17 1327603.167 368.88 46.1103183
364 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 374.00 1327977.17 1327603.167 368.88 46.1103183
365 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 0.00 1328024.74 1328024.742 368.90 46.1119702
366 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 0.00 1327603.17 1327603.167 368.78 46.09733219
367 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 0.00 1327603.17 1327603.167 368.78 46.09733219
368 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 136.00 1328160.74 1328024.742 368.93 46.11669242
369 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 136.00 1327739.17 1327603.167 368.82 46.10205441
370 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1078210.56 136.00 1327739.17 1327603.167 368.82 46.10205441
371 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 374.00 1308588.18 1308214.182 363.50 45.43708964
372 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 374.00 1308166.61 1307792.607 363.38 45.42245163
373 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 374.00 1308166.61 1307792.607 363.38 45.42245163
374 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 0.00 1308214.18 1308214.182 363.39 45.42410353
375 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 0.00 1307792.61 1307792.607 363.28 45.40946552
376 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 0.00 1307792.61 1307792.607 363.28 45.40946552
377 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 421.57 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 136.00 1308350.18 1308214.182 363.43 45.42882576
378 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 136.00 1307928.61 1307792.607 363.31 45.41418775
379 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 233040.12 16352.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1058400.00 136.00 1307928.61 1307792.607 363.31 45.41418775

Panel
size
(600/120
0/1800/2 Open/Closed/ Structure Cladding Element Element
timber /sip 400) Volumetric (glulam /steel/none) (red cedar/stone/zinc) Insulation responsible soucing environment Cost score
Total
Panel
Cladding
Insulation
Lining
Panels Cladding Insulation Lining Structure Structure Wall panel and cladding upper floor Insulation Internal wall Time score Environmental Cost score Adaptability H&S responsible sourcingSustainbility score
1 traditional 3 3 2.50 2.00 3 5.55 9 10 10 3.1 8.13 5.55 46
2 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 3 9.2 4 5.6 7.70 5.3 35
3 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 6 2 9.2 3 5.6 7.67 5.35 33
4 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 6 3 9.2 2 5.6 7.67 5.4 33
5 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 3 9.2 6 5.6 7.70 5.3 37
6 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 6 2 9.2 5 5.6 7.67 5.35 35
7 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 6 3 9.2 4 5.6 7.67 5.4 35
8 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 6 3 9.2 1 5.6 7.88 5.5 32
9 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 5.6 7.84 5.55 31
10 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 6 3 9.2 1 5.6 7.84 5.6 32
11 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 3 10 6 6.2 7.53 5.3 38
12 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 2 10 5 6.2 7.49 5.35 36
13 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 3 10 3 6.2 7.49 5.4 35
14 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 3 10 7 6.2 7.53 5.3 39
15 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 2 10 7 6.2 7.49 5.35 38
16 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 3 10 5 6.2 7.49 5.4 37
17 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 10 3 10 2 6.2 7.70 5.5 34
18 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 10 2 10 2 6.2 7.67 5.55 33
19 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 10 3 10 1 6.2 7.67 5.6 33
20 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 3 9.2 4 5.6 7.70 5.05 35
21 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.1 10 10 6 2 9.2 3 5.6 7.67 5.1 33
22 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 0.5 5.15 10 10 6 3 9.2 2 5.6 7.67 5.15 33
23 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 3 9.2 6 5.6 7.70 5.05 37
24 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.1 10 10 6 2 9.2 5 5.6 7.67 5.1 35
25 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 0.5 5.15 10 10 6 3 9.2 3 5.6 7.67 5.15 34
26 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 0.5 5.25 10 10 6 3 9.2 1 5.6 7.88 5.25 32
27 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.3 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 5.6 7.84 5.3 31
28 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 0.5 5.35 10 10 6 3 9.2 1 5.6 7.84 5.35 32
29 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 2 9.2 4 6.1 7.79 5.3 34
30 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 6 1 9.2 3 6.1 7.75 5.35 32
31 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 6 2 9.2 2 6.1 7.75 5.4 32
32 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 2 9.2 6 6.1 7.79 5.3 36
33 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 6 2 9.2 5 6.1 7.75 5.35 35
34 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 6 2 9.2 4 6.1 7.75 5.4 34
35 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 6.1 7.96 5.5 32
36 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 6.1 7.93 5.55 32
37 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 6.1 7.93 5.6 32
38 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 2 10 5 6.7 7.61 5.3 37
39 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 1 10 5 6.7 7.57 5.35 36
40 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 2 10 3 6.7 7.57 5.4 35
41 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 2 10 7 6.7 7.61 5.3 39
42 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 2 10 6 6.7 7.57 5.35 38
43 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 2 10 5 6.7 7.57 5.4 37
44 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 10 2 10 2 6.7 7.79 5.5 34
45 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 10 2 10 2 6.7 7.75 5.55 34
46 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 10 2 10 1 6.7 7.75 5.6 33
47 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 2 9.2 4 6.1 7.79 5.05 34
48 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.1 10 10 6 1 9.2 3 6.1 7.75 5.1 32
49 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 0.5 5.15 10 10 6 2 9.2 2 6.1 7.75 5.15 32
50 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 2 9.2 5 6.1 7.79 5.05 35
51 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.1 10 10 6 2 9.2 5 6.1 7.75 5.1 35
52 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 0.5 5.15 10 10 6 2 9.2 3 6.1 7.75 5.15 33
53 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 0.5 5.25 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 6.1 7.96 5.25 32
54 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.3 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 6.1 7.93 5.3 32
55 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 0.5 5.35 10 10 6 2 9.2 1 6.1 7.93 5.35 32
56 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 1 9.2 5 5.9 7.82 5.3 34
57 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 6 0 9.2 5 5.9 7.79 5.35 33
58 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 6 1 9.2 3 5.9 7.79 5.4 32
59 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 1 9.2 7 5.9 7.82 5.3 36
60 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 6 1 9.2 6 5.9 7.79 5.35 35
61 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 6 1 9.2 5 5.9 7.79 5.4 34
62 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 6 1 9.2 2 5.9 8.00 5.5 32
63 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 6 1 9.2 2 5.9 7.96 5.55 32
64 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 6 1 9.2 1 5.9 7.96 5.6 31
65 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 1 10 7 5.9 7.65 5.3 37
66 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 0 10 6 5.9 7.61 5.35 35
67 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 1 10 5 5.9 7.61 5.4 35
68 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 1 10 8 5.9 7.65 5.3 38
69 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 1 10 8 5.9 7.61 5.35 38
70 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 1 10 6 5.9 7.61 5.4 36
71 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 10 1 10 3 5.9 7.82 5.5 33
72 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 10 1 10 2 5.9 7.79 5.55 32
73 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 10 1 10 2 5.9 7.79 5.6 32
74 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 1 9.2 5 5.9 7.82 5.05 34
75 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.1 10 10 6 0 9.2 4 5.9 7.79 5.1 32
76 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 0.5 5.15 10 10 6 1 9.2 3 5.9 7.79 5.15 32
77 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 1 9.2 7 5.9 7.82 5.05 36
78 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.1 10 10 6 1 9.2 6 5.9 7.79 5.1 35
79 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 0.5 5.15 10 10 6 1 9.2 5 5.9 7.79 5.15 34
80 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 0.5 5.25 10 10 6 1 9.2 2 5.9 8.00 5.25 31
81 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 0.5 5.3 10 10 6 1 9.2 1 5.9 7.96 5.3 30
82 TFpanel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 0.5 5.35 10 10 6 1 9.2 1 5.9 7.96 5.35 30

Panel
size
(600/120
Total
Panel
Cladding
Insulation
Lining

Panel
size
(600/120
Total
Panel
Cladding
Insulation
Lining

Panel
size
(600/120
Total
Panel
Cladding
Insulation
Lining
281 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 7.53 5.3 50
282 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 10 10 9 7 7.49 5.35 49
283 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 8 7 7.49 5.4 48
284 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 2 2 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 7.53 5.3 50
285 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 2 2.5 2.00 3 5.35 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 7.49 5.35 50
286 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 2 3 2.00 3 5.4 10 10 10 10 10 9 7 7.49 5.4 49
287 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Warmcell Warmcell 3 3 2 2.00 3 5.5 10 10 10 10 10 6 7 7.70 5.5 46
288 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Rockwool 3 3 2.5 2.00 3 5.55 10 10 10 10 10 6 7 7.67 5.55 46
289 TFpanel TF/SIP 2400 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding Batts (sheepwool or Rockwool) Sheep wool 3 3 3 2.00 3 5.6 10 10 10 10 10 4 7 7.67 5.6 44
326 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 5 9.2 8 5.5 7.70 5.1 41
327 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 5 9.2 10 5.5 7.70 5.1 43
328 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 5 9.2 4 5.5 7.88 5.3 37
329 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 5 10 9 6.1 7.53 5.1 43
330 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 5 10 10 6.1 7.53 5.1 44
331 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 5 10 6 6.1 7.70 5.3 40
332 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 5 9.2 8 5.5 7.70 4.85 40
333 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 5 9.2 9 5.5 7.70 4.85 41
334 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 5 9.2 4 5.5 7.88 5.05 37
335 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 2 9.2 8 6 7.79 5.1 38
336 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 2 9.2 9 6 7.79 5.1 39
337 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 2 9.2 4 6 7.96 5.3 34
338 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 2 10 9 6.6 7.61 5.1 40
339 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 2 10 10 6.6 7.61 5.1 41
340 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 2 10 6 6.6 7.79 5.3 38

Panel
size
(600/120
Total
Panel
Cladding
Insulation
Lining
341 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 2 9.2 8 6 7.79 4.85 38
342 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 2 9.2 9 6 7.79 4.85 39
343 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 2 9.2 4 6 7.96 5.05 34
344 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 1 9.2 7 5.6 7.82 5.1 36
345 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 1 9.2 9 5.6 7.82 5.1 38
346 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 1 9.2 3 5.6 8.00 5.3 32
347 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 1 10 8 5.6 7.65 5.1 37
348 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 1 10 10 5.6 7.65 5.1 39
349 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 1 10 4 5.6 7.82 5.3 34
350 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 1 9.2 7 5.6 7.82 4.85 35
351 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 1 9.2 9 5.6 7.82 4.85 37
352 SIP Panel TF/SIP 600 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 1 9.2 3 5.6 8.00 5.05 32
353 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 9 9.2 9 5.5 7.70 5.1 46
354 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 9 9.2 10 5.5 7.70 5.1 47
355 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 9 9.2 5 5.5 7.88 5.3 42
356 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 9 10 10 6.1 7.53 5.1 48
357 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 9 10 10 6.1 7.53 5.1 48
358 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 9 10 7 6.1 7.70 5.3 45
359 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 9 9.2 9 5.5 7.70 4.85 45
360 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 9 9.2 10 5.5 7.70 4.85 46
361 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Closed OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 9 9.2 5 5.5 7.88 5.05 42
362 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 5 9.2 9 6 7.79 5.1 42
363 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 5 9.2 10 6 7.79 5.1 43
364 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 5 9.2 5 6 7.96 5.3 38
365 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 5 10 10 6.6 7.61 5.1 44
366 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 5 10 10 6.6 7.61 5.1 44
367 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 5 10 7 6.6 7.79 5.3 42
368 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 5 9.2 9 6 7.79 4.85 42
369 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 5 9.2 10 6 7.79 4.85 43
370 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Open OPCL Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 5 9.2 5 6 7.96 5.05 38
371 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 6 9.2 9 5.6 7.82 5.1 43
372 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 6 6 9.2 10 5.6 7.82 5.1 44
373 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume 90x240mm glulam Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 6 6 9.2 6 5.6 8.00 5.3 40
374 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 6 10 10 5.7 7.65 5.1 44
375 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 3 5.1 10 10 10 6 10 10 5.7 7.65 5.1 44
376 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Non-structural Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 3 5.3 10 10 10 6 10 7 5.7 7.82 5.3 42
377 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Western Red Cedar EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 6 9.2 9 5.6 7.82 4.85 42
378 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Z-shaped stone cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 2 0 2.00 0.5 4.85 10 10 6 6 9.2 10 5.6 7.82 4.85 43
379 SIP Panel TF/SIP 1200 Volumetric volume Steel rsj beam 203*133 Zinc cladding EPS EPS density 20kg/m3 3 3 0 2.00 0.5 5.05 10 10 6 6 9.2 6 5.6 8.00 5.05 40

J TRADITONAL CONSTRUCTION
J.1 TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Element Material Specification Dimensions

Ground floor Hardcore (Barry’s pg. 85) Floor area 4200*7000
Specification :
Usually 100-300mm
deep
Insulation Mineral wool Floor area 4200*7000
DPM Polythene >0.25mm (4200+((2*(100+102.5+100)))*
(7000+((2*(100+102.5+100)))
Concrete floor slab/ Screed Concrete >150mm Floor area 4200*7000
Screed >12mm
External wall External brick work Clay brick
Brick standard size
215 x 102.5 x 65mm
with 10mm mortar
joint
Compressive
strength 5N/mm2
Mortar (ready mix: sand and 10mm joint
cement
Void 2.47 per square
Wall ties metre
Insulation Mineral wool
Internal block (pg. 173) 440*215x100mm
Compressive
strength2.8N/mm2
(Approved Doc A,
from Barry’s pg.
Plaster One/two
undercoat 12mm
Finishing coat 3mm
Internal upper Gypsum skim 2-5mm
floor Gypsum base board 900x12209.5mm
Timber joist Struts Pg. 116 Barry
Beam 50*38mm, nailed:
Struts herring bone
strutting
Spacing 450mm
Span 3.6-4.0m
Insulation 100mm 38-75mm thick
75-235deep
21mm softwood floor 21*600*2400

boarding /chipboard
Chipboard
Roof Rafters and trusses Barry pg274
Insulation
Roof sarking 1.5m x 50m -
75.00m2
299
Battens 38x19mm battens

100gauge
Plain tiles (burned clay) 265*165mm
Ridge tiles
Internal wall Internal block (pg. 173) 440*215x100mm
(structural) Compressive
strength2.8N/mm2
(Approved Doc A,
from Barry’s pg.
Plaster One/two
undercoat 12mm
Finishing coat 3mm
Internal wall Clay block 290x215*100mm
(non-structural)
300
K EMAIL COMMUNICATION
301
Email communication
Ric Frankland richard@dwelle.co.uk via liverpool.ac.uk
29 Jun 2015, 08:58
to Gordy, Ruth
Hi Gordy
I’ve uploaded the latest CAD drawing to Dropbox (“urban dwelle.ing”). Although it’s
very much a working drawing, hopefully it’s clear enough. I’ve also added the
“timber panels” drawing. This hopefully shows you my proposed "kit-of-parts".
Originally I designed the frame and panels based on the following principles:
90x240 glulam (or LVL if necessary) portal frames at roughly 2.4-3m centres;
glulam beam at ground floor level connects across to create a fully connected
portal;
90x240 I-joists connect across portal at intermediate floor levels (lighter in weight,
cheaper and easier to run services through);
timber panels are around 1.2x2.4m in size;
(closed) panels are typically made up using 11mm OSB and 240mm I-joists at
400mm centres;
timber roof and floor panels span across between portals, whereas the wall panels
are upright;
wall, roof and ground floor panel connections are made using Walco connectors
fixed into glulam portals and 45mm LVL along the edges of the panels;
intermediate floor panels are fixed using Simpson Strongtie hangers; and
internal walls and fins (made from 89mm SW between 2 layers of 12.5mm
Fermacell) positioned within the portal provide rigidity.
302
There’s a sketch of the general idea in Dropbox. Now I’m considering the following,
to keep the material cost down:
90x240 glulam (or LVL if necessary) portal frames at roughly 2.4-3m centres;
glulam beam at ground floor level connects across to create a fully connected
portal;
90x240 I-joists connect across portal at intermediate floor levels;
with differences...
timber panels are around 1.2x2.4m in size, although depending on weight, could
make some of the wall panels slightly bigger (2.4x2.4m, so one full panel fits
between the portals and the floors);
(closed) panels are typically made up using 11mm OSB and 240mm I-joists at
greater 600mm centres (?), with floor panels still at 400mm centres;
timber roof and floor panels span across between portals - wall panels could also
span lengthways, for easier fixing? - no twisting in the centres;
wall, roof and ground floor panel connections are made by simply screwing through
the wood fibre insulation and OSB into the glulam portal, replacing the 45mm LVL
along the edges of the panels with insulated I-joists;
and still the same...
intermediate floor panels are fixed using Simpson Strongtie hangers; and
internal walls and fins (made from 89mm SW between 2 layers of 12.5mm
Fermacell) positioned within the portal provide rigidity.
Items I’m unclear about and need some direction to enable me to include in the
costs are as follows:
sub base design / foundation design - how are the portals supported off the
foundations, allowing different options for the foundations (for Cornwall the
foundations will be standards across the site but we’ve not had details yet, possibly
precast beams, whereas for the Skippets maybe we could use
http://www.abcanchors.co.uk )?
303
connection plates for the portals - are they bespoke or is there something off-the-
shelf we can use from Rothoblaas or Simpson Strongtie?
requirement for ridge beam? - ideally would like flues to terminate through the
apex of the roof.
Any queries at all, please call me on my mobile.
Best regards
Ric
Ric Frankland, Director
dwelle.
304
BUDGET QUOTATION
To: Ruth From: Emma Laing
Company:Dwelle Pages: Five
E-Mail: Date: 01.07.15
Ref: Crane Quotation – Manchester
Dear Sirs / Madam,
Further to our recent site visit, please find below our quotation for the provision of
Contract Lift Services at the above site location. This quotation is provided following
a preliminary site visit and either uses actual information that has been provided by
the client or uses evaluation that will require confirmation prior to the operation
being planned. The following price may need to be revised in the event of any
unpredictable changes that may occur prior to the actual lift operation.
All Hewden Crane Hire Contract Lifts are carried out in accordance with BS7121 Part
3 Code of Practice for Safe Use of Cranes, LOLER Regulations 1998 and CPA
Standard Terms and Conditions for a contract for the Lifting and Movement of
Goods Involving Crane Operation.
Please note that any insurance referred to below may not cover the value of the
item being moved, therefore it is the clients responsibility to ensure that adequate
insurance is obtained for any / all items being lifted during the operation.
The ground pressure loadings assigned to the standing / lifting area of the
procedure are required as essential information for the Method Statement that is
required for the planned operation.
A cancellation charge of £150.00p may be incurred if the work is cancelled following

the issue of the Method Statement and Risk Assessment documents should they
have been provided to / received by the client following the receipt of a Purchase
Order number.
305
1.0 Technical Proposal
1.1 Scope of Work (based on maximum weights provided by client):
Specification:
Provision of Mobile Crane
Provision of Lift Supervisor
Provision of Slinger
1.2 Specialist Lifting Tackle – not carried as standard equipment with crane.
2.0 Commercial Proposal
2.1 To supply the equipment as detailed in Section 1: -
£1,342.00 for 8 hours on site work – weekday working (Daytime)
Or
£1,702.00 for 8 hours on site work – weekend working (Daytime)
2.2 The above price allows for up to 8 hours work on site per day. Hours worked in
excess of 8 would be chargeable at £170.00 per each additional hour.
2.3 The above price allows for transportation of crane and equipment to and from
site, and includes for standard rigging and de-rigging of the crane.
2.4 The above price includes for experienced supervision and labour to execute the
lifts.
2.5 The above price includes for the provision of a Method Statement, which will be
supplied upon receipt of a Purchase Order.
2.6 The above price includes for provision of an Appointed Person to plan and
arrange supervision of the lifting operation/s.
306
2.7 Insurance cover as set out in the C.P.A. Standard Terms and Conditions for a
Contract for the Lifting and Movement of Goods Involving Crane Operation is
provided for in this quotation – refer to section 7.0 for specific details.
2.8 No retention to be withheld on completion of contract.
3.0 Additional Items
Pending Site Visit
4.0 Access/Authority
We would draw your attention to the following:
4.1 Free and unrestricted access to all areas of operation.
4.2 Any Traffic Management required should be in place in good time.
4.3 It is the Clients responsibility to ensure all necessary authorities/permits are

obtained.
4.4 Failure to comply with the above will leave the Client liable for the full contract
charges, should the job be aborted.
5.0 General Conditions
5.1 This quotation is subject to the CPA Standard Terms and Conditions for Contract
for the Lifting and Movement of Goods Involving Crane Operation (copies enclosed).
5.2 These Terms and Conditions shall not be varied, except with our Company’s
written agreement and signed by a person authorised thereto by our Company.
5.3 This quotation is based upon lifting the items detailed in the scope of works.
Should additional lifts be required which fall outside this scope of works then the
contract would revert to the CPA Model Conditions for the Hiring of Plant.
5.4 Unless otherwise specified by our Company in writing, every quotation is open
for acceptance for a period of thirty days, after which the quotation will be subject
to confirmation by our Company.
307
5.5 V.A.T. will be charged at the prevailing rate.
5.6 Any technical literature or drawing supplied by Hewden Crane Hire Limited is
supplied without liability and any defects will not affect the conditions of hire.
5.7 Availability - this offer is made subject to the availability of the equipment and
the receipt of a written order. Additionally, we can accept no consequential losses
incurred due to Police or Local Authority actions in delaying authorised movements
of machines in the process of travelling to your site from our depot or previous
contract.
6.0 Specific Conditions
Your attention is drawn to Clause 7 of the CPA Standard Terms and Conditions for a
Contract for the Lifting and Movement of Goods Involving Crane Operation. In
particular the client should note the following:
6.1 Any defect in the contract goods including any design defect and any defect
relating to lifting points on the contract goods.
6.2 Any defect in equipment provided by the client.
6.3 Unexpected and unforeseen subsidence or unstable ground conditions.
6.4 Delay in commencing or completing the contract work due to circumstances

beyond our Company’s control including, but not limited to any strike or other
industrial action. In particular costs arising from delays due to inclement weather
i.e. wind speeds that are in excess of the design limitations for the crane
configuration being used.
7.0 Insurance
7.1 Our Company’s liability, if any, arising from or in connection with the lifting
contract will be limited to:
308
7.1(a) For loss or destruction of or damage to the contract goods will be limited to
a total of £25,000.00 (twenty five thousand pounds sterling).
7.1(b) For any other loss, damage or injury will be limited to a total sum of
£5,000,000.00 (five million pounds sterling).
7.2 Our Company can on request, prior to the commencement of the contract,
provide quotations to increase the amounts stated in Clauses 7.1(a) and 7.1(b). This
must be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the lifting contract.
7.3 We recommend that the client contact their insurance advisors to confirm that
they have sufficient cover for our Company’s exclusion of liability.
7.4 The client should also ensure that they have sufficient Public Liability Insurance
Cover to provide indemnity for our Company’s plant/equipment caused by the
client’s negligence either in whole or part.
Please Note – This quotation is based on client information only and is subject to a
Hewden site visit.
We trust that we have interpreted your requirements correctly, should you require
any further clarification or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
If you should require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the
below.
Yours faithfully
For and on behalf of HEWDEN
Emma
309
Emma Laing
Hire Controller – Cranes
310
RE: Construction Waste Disposal Liverpool University Research
Inbox
Customer Care <customercare@jwswaste.co.uk>
Thu, 24 Sep 2015, 12:53
to Ruth
Hi Ruth
We don’t normally agree to help with research but please find rates below.
Contracted weekly removal of waste from a factory. Costs per tonne for timber,
plasterboard and "other general mixed waste" Approximately 0.5 tonne per week.
Timber £85.00 per tonne
Plasterboard £100.00 per tonne
General Mixed Recyclable Waste £90.00 per tonne
General Mixed Non-recyclable Waste £105.00 per tonne although bulky items for
landfill are £120.00 per tonne
The above rates would be based on you tipping into our facility. For an 8yd skip to
an ‘M’ postcode for recyclable construction waste the rate would be £180.00.
Plasterboard needs to be kept separate so would be charged on a separate

transport of roughly £60.00 to an ‘M’ postcode then the disposal above (minimum 1
tonne).
Prices are subject to VAT.
Kind regards
Jane Eustace, Customer Services Manager, JWS Waste and Recycling Services Ltd
311

May2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

May2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

May2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The development of a sustainable construction design process.

Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements

of the University of Liverpool for the

degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Ruth Michelle Sutton

8th May 2019

Ruth Michelle Sutton

The project and my participation was made possible by European Regional

1.2 Research Aims 3

1.2.2 Primary Research Question 3

1.2.3 Secondary research questions 3

1.3.2 Design decisions 4

1.3.3 Case study 5

1.4 Thesis layout & summary of chapters 5

2.2.2 Business sustainability 9

2.2.3 Designing sustainably 10

2.2.4 Life cycle assessment 12

2.3 Housing construction industry 14

2.3.2 Traditional construction 14

2.3.3 Construction innovation 16

2.3.4 Sustainable Design Tools / Sustainable construction 17

2.4 Industrial Design 19

2.4.2 Car manufacture: from craft to lean 20

2.4.3 Comparison of construction and automotive manufacture 21

2.5 Prefabricated housing 25

2.5.3 Prefabricated design and construction 28

2.6 The Research problem 31

2.6.1 Research targets 33

3.2 Research theory 35

3.3 Outline method 36

3.4 Theoretical frameworks 38

3.5 Sustainable Construction Design Process (SCDP) 39

3.5.1 Product specification and functional requirements 40

3.5.2 Embodied design 41

3.6 Sustainability assessment 44

3.6.2 Inventory analysis 46

3.6.3 Impact assessment 47

4.1.2 Outline design 62

4.1.3 Functional unit 62

4.2 Product design 65

4.3 Conceptual design 66

4.3.1 Functional requirements: Building 66

4.3.2 Design conflicts: Building 69

4.3.3 Functional requirements: Building elements 70

4.3.4 Design conflicts: Building elements 72

4.4 Embodied design 73

4.4.2 Size requirements and layout. 73

4.4.3 Summary of transport design 77

4.4.4 Element design 80

4.4.5 Panel arrangements 82

4.4.6 Sustainability assessment 84

4.4.7 Design for Manufacture: Panel 86

4.4.8 Machining parts 88

4.4.9 Panel assembly time in the factory 89

4.4.10 Volumetric manufacture and assembly in the factory 90

4.4.11 Design for Assembly: Panel assembly on site 91

4.4.12 Sustainability assessment 93

4.5 Traditional construction method 96

4.5.2 Construction process 98

4.5.3 Sustainability assessment 99